Afghanistan - time to go! [Archive]

jmjoseph

Sep 20, 2009, 12:04 PM

If you compare the attitude of Americans during WWII, and all of the conflicts since, it shames me to no end. We, Americans, should be ashamed of the large percentage of arrogant, selfish, non-appreciative, citizens that call themselves patriotic.

Every day, men and women all over the world, away from their loved ones, risk their lives to protect our freedom. The very freedom that our ancestor's died for. The founding fathers would ship them all to an island somewhere if it happened back then.

How dare people take for granted the death of ONE soldier, much less thousands? During WWII, we rationed, banned, worked, did without, whatever it took to win the war effort, and protect our country, and the world, from aggressors. If another world war were to happen today, what would be the collective attitude?

Every day, in the news, people complain about something that's wrong with this country. I say, leave. That's right, leave if you don't like it. This is absolutely the best country in the world( sorry to all the others), I don't complain about my atxes, my income, or our government as a whole. Because I love this country with all my heart. And I will until the day I die. There is an American flag on our house today, and will be one there until I'm gone. And I hope I instill the same patriotic attitude in my two young sons.

GOD bless America, and may GOD bless all the soldiers that protect her.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for giving the ultimate sacrifice.

Blood and sweat made this country, and blood and sweat will keep her free.

paraclete

Sep 20, 2009, 02:35 PM

If you compare the attitude of Americans during WWII, and all of the conflicts since, it shames me to no end. We, Americans, should be ashamed of the large percentage of arrogant, selfish, non-appreciative, citizens that call themselves patriotic.

Every day, men and women all over the world, away from their loved ones, risk their lives to protect our freedom. The very freedom that our ancestor's died for. The founding fathers would ship them all to an island somewhere if it happened back then.

How dare people take for granted the death of ONE soldier, much less thousands? During WWII, we rationed, banned, worked, did without, whatever it took to win the war effort, and protect our country, and the world, from aggressors. If another world war were to happen today, what would be the collective attitude?

Every day, in the news, people complain about something that's wrong with this country. I say, leave. That's right, leave if you don't like it. This is absolutely the best country in the world( sorry to all the others), I don't complain about my atxes, my income, or our government as a whole. Because I love this country with all my heart. And I will until the day I die. There is an American flag on our house today, and will be one there until I'm gone. And I hope I instill the same patriotic attitude to my two young sons.

Hi Joseph even though I'm not from your country I agree with you, There is a sacrifice being made in Afghanistan. I'm unsure that the sacrifice will yield the desired result to free the world of the tyranny of terrorism, or to create a fair society for the Afghans, but the sacrifices being made by troops of many nations there should not be treated lightly and routinely

Wondergirl

Sep 20, 2009, 02:55 PM

paraclete

Sep 20, 2009, 03:44 PM

Afghanistan is not a "normal" country with a central government and a national army. It's made up of desert tribes that don't even get along with each other. Their warfare is done with booby traps and other deviousnesses. How can we fight under such conditions? We end up killing innocents, not the instigators. There is little to accomplish, and why sacrifice even more of our troops? Staying there will not justify earlier sacrifices.

I say let's leave.

I agree, every army that entered Afghanistan was ultimately defeated. There is no point to fighting this primitive people. The land is worthless, the country morally bankrupt, they are better left to themselves. They have the ability to survive in this hostile place, let them.

I cannot help but think there must be an ulterior motive to fighting this war. It really can't be about chasing a few terrorists around the Hindu Kush. Have you noticed that neither of Afghanistan's neighbours have shown interest in taking advantage of the disarray. That should tell you something, the presence of US troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan must make Iran nervous, paranoid even.

Catsmine

Sep 20, 2009, 04:21 PM

, the presence of US troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan must make Iran nervous, paranoid even.

You begin to see the strategy. I just wish more American politicians did.

paraclete

Sep 20, 2009, 11:01 PM

You begin to see the strategy. I just wish more American politicians did.

I saw the strategy a long time ago, but it is poor strategy, brinkmanship.

tomder55

Sep 21, 2009, 04:14 AM

The election in Afghanistan is proving the be an embarrassment ;and efforts at democratization seems futile in the near future... and no one wants the long term comittment needed to see that happen anyway. . Wondergirl is right about the tribal makeup of the country. I think it's time for them to conduct a loya jirga to select a leader . I think the best we can hope for is a loose confederation of tribes managing a central government .

I do not see it in anyone's interest to leave the country to the likes of the Taliban .No one wants al Qaeda to have sanctuary and a base to plan international jihadi war . Nor do I think it wise to leave because the strategic implications of a probable failed Pakistan state if we leave . The Obama administration correctly calls the conflict AfPak because the security issue involved is NOT contained to simply the geographic Afghanistan. The Pakistanis have taken a more aggressive stance toward the Taliban and al Qaeda, at least within their own borders and it is in our interest to help them in that battle .

The logistics makes it difficult to maintain a huge presence there ;but there are enemies located there that need to be engaged.The best I can make of the current military policy is to do limitted offensive efforts ,and otherwise hold on until a better political situation emerges. The requests for more troops by the commanders in an attempt to duplicate the Iraq surge should be put on hold until at least the President can articulate a strategic plan for the theater . Based on yesterday's interviews I don't think he can do that yet.

Also; I truly think this battle is the nail in the coffin for NATO.. They have failed to demonstrate a usefulness beyond their common defense of continental Europe and their efforts in Afghanistan have mostly been feckless . President Obama campaigned on the position that the US alienated Europe ;especially France and Germany during the Bush years. He said IRAQ=BAD WAR ;and AFGHANISTAN=GOOD WAR .
He counted on the premise that by the sheer force of his personality he could get them to commit to the effort in Afghanistan.
He has generally been rebuffed . President Bush realized he'd get nowhere begging these nations to contribute .But Obama counted on it. They have not delivered.

ETWolverine

Sep 21, 2009, 02:58 PM

paraclete

Sep 21, 2009, 07:00 PM

I do not see it in anyone's interest to leave the country to the likes of the Taliban .No one wants al Qaeda to have sanctuary and a base to plan international jihadi war . Nor do I think it wise to leave because the strategic implications of a probable failed Pakistan state if we leave .
.
Tom Al Qaeda has a santuary elsewhere, deprived of Afghanistan they will just surface in Somalia or Sudan. Pakistan is less likely to fail if it doesn't have to support the US war effort in Afghanistan by fighting its own people.

The idea that Pakistan is a failed state is incorrect, it is 3rd world with great potential, but it cannot develop whilst it has this instability on its borders and it has to put so much of its efforts into war.

The logistics makes it difficult to maintain a huge presence there ;but there are enemies located there that need to be engaged. .

The logistics make defeat probable and the larger the US contingent the greater number or targets. This cannot be fought as a conventional war. The tactics used by the Taliban were honed against the Russians. Unless the US can win the hearts and minds of the people they are wasting their time. Ethnically they are the wrong people to be fighting there, Religiously they are the wrong people to be fighting there. The Taliban are fighting because there is an invader in their land, a concept the US is blind to, but the Taliban are fighting the infidel

Also; I truely think this battle is the nail in the coffin for NATO ..They have failed to demonstrate a usefulness beyond their common defense of continental Europe and their efforts in Afghanistan have mostly been feckless .

There is no good war, this one started as righteous, but eight years on one has to ask why bother and what has been really achieved. Afghanistan has undeveloped oil and gas so I expect the US interest extends beyond Al Qaeda. NATO exists as a check to the Russians and it carries out that role well. NATO is just a US proxy and the European heart really isn't in it, after all only Britain and Spain have been attacked by Al Qaeda. The US has a great need to pull back from these offshore engagements and get its house in order and remove the "at the gates" pressure on Iran.

inthebox

Sep 21, 2009, 09:56 PM

Last week, Excon, you pointed to the fact that Frank Rich and Robert Gates were saying that we should get out of Afghanistan as evidence that the war in Afghanistan is lost.

At that time, I pointed out to you the fact that we could win in Afghanistan if we were willing to commit the appropriate force levels and loosen the ROE to an appropriate level. Then we could commit to a strategy that was similar to the one that worked in Iraq. You argued that you would believe the military commanders before you believed me.

Well, yesterday General Stanley McChrystal's report to Gates became public. Turns out that McChrystal, who is the current commanding officer of US Forces in Afghanistan... in other words he is THE military commander on the ground... has the same idea that I put forward. He wants more troops and he wants to conduct the war as it SHOULD be fought. And Obama is, to use military parlance, c*ck-blocking him on it.

So... who do you believe... me and the military commander on the ground? Or the politicians?

You'll probably believe the politicians... because it's about politics for you, not whether the war can actually be won or whether the job can be and should be accomplished. It's not about military realities, it's about your personal belief that war, by its very nature, must be wrong.

There ARE some wars worth fighting. There are wars that can be won, and won decisively. This happens to be one of them... if you'll get out of the way and let the soldiers do their jobs properly.

But that ain't going to happen, is it?

Elliot

Commentary: Afghanistan isn't worth one more American life | McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/74876.html)

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?

2. Do we have a clear, attainable objective?

3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

4. Have all non-violent policy means been exhausted?

5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

6. Have all the consequences of our action been fully considered?

7. Is the action supported by the American people?

8. Do we have broad international support?

Those questions weren't asked and answered before we invaded Afghanistan late in 2001, and by the time we invaded Iraq early in 2003, then-defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was declaring the Powell doctrine "outmoded" as he ran premature victory laps around a fleeting success in Afghanistan

I don't think all 8 questions can be satisfactorily answered now?

George Will : In Afghanistan, Knowing When to Stop - Townhall.com (http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2009/09/01/in_afghanistan,_knowing_when_to_stop?page=2)

Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains. Hence nation-building would be impossible even if we knew how, and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try: The Brookings Institution ranks Somalia as the only nation with a weaker state.

Military historian Max Hastings says Kabul controls only about a third of the country -- "control" is an elastic concept -- and "'our' Afghans may prove no more viable than were 'our' Vietnamese, the Saigon regime

Hmm, is it cold in H-ll? Liberal and conservative basically agreeing in this case? ;)

G&P

tomder55

Sep 22, 2009, 05:55 AM

When speaking about Vietnam comparisons I'm surprised the obvious one has been ignored... the comparison of the corrupt Diem brothers to the Karzai brothers. Ngo Dinh Diem was supposedly the stabilizing force against Ho ;the puppet of China and Russia. But by the fall of 1963 Kennedy decided that the Diems were liabilities and Ngo Dinh Diem was wacked in a CIA orchestrated coup .Nguyen Van Thieu became the new leader backed by the S Vietnam army and the United States.

Karzai currently is the Afghan leader propped up by the US. The recent elections were a complete fraud and an embarrassment to the US . By all accounts Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, Karzai's former foreign minister was leading in the polls before the election by wide margins. Yet Karzai claimed a huge victory .

It's hard to determine if Karzai is the Obama administration's Diem or Thieu .I say that because we have not done enough to condemn the Karzai conduct in the elections.

Karzai runs Kabul with US protection and little else. His brother Ahmed Wali Karzai rules Kandahar province in the south along with the drug trafficking infrastructure in that region. So long as they remain the effort in Afghanistan is compromised because their actions create a cynicism that only benefits the Taliban.
So long as we back Karzai we make a mockery of our claim to seek a democratic Afghanistan.

tomder55

Sep 22, 2009, 06:07 AM

Tom Al Qaeda has a santuary elsewhere, deprived of Afghanistan they will just surface in Somalia or Sudan. Pakistan is less likely to fail if it doesn't have to support the US war effort in Afghanistan by fighting its own people.

I completely disagree. AQ and Taliban leaders are being picked off . Without our efforts I believe they will quickly move on Islamabad .

Unless the US can win the hearts and minds of the people they are wasting their time. On this we agree . That's why I posted above about the wrongness of continuing our support for Karzai.

Afghanistan has undeveloped oil and gas so I expect the US interest extends beyond Al Qaeda.
Tin foil hat time. The closest I've heard to this theory is a vague unconfirmed reference to Karzai's alleged consulatation work for Unocol. Unocal and Karzai have denied any such relationship . There was talk about a pipeline going through Afghanistan... but that has more to do with Caspian sea reserves than any I've heard of in Afghanistan.

excon

Sep 22, 2009, 06:50 AM

So... who do you believe... me and the military commander on the ground? Or the politicians?Hello Elliot:

I believe ME.

It's MY view, that the US can NEVER be defeated by a foreign army because of WHO WE ARE. We're a snarly lot. We have guns. We LIKE our freedom. We AIN'T going to give up. We ARE going to form insurgencies, and we'll fight 'em to the last man. If they want to beat us, it's going to take ONE soldier to watch EACH citizen, and I don't think ANY army has enough soldiers to do that...

Afghanistan is a LOT like us in that regard, for completely different reasons, of course... But, the reasons don't change anything on the ground. It's going to take ONE of our soldiers to watch EACH one of them, and we ain't got that many.

excon

ETWolverine

Sep 22, 2009, 06:53 AM

Commentary: Afghanistan isn't worth one more American life | McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/74876.html)

I don't think all 8 questions can be satisfactorily answered now?

George Will : In Afghanistan, Knowing When to Stop - Townhall.com (http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2009/09/01/in_afghanistan,_knowing_when_to_stop?page=2)

Hmm, is it cold in H-ll? Liberal and conservative basically agreeing in this case? ;)

G&P

Here are my responses to the questions.

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?

Considering that the terrorists who committed the 9/11 attacks came through Afghanistan and used Afghanistan as a staging point, I'd say that we have a strong national security interest in making sure that Afghanistan is under control. That is, in fact, why Obama said during 2007 and 2008 that Afghanistan, not Iraq, was the war we "should" be fighting... the "right" war, as opposed to Iraq, which he called the "wrong" war. Even those on the left seem to agree on that point... or they did when it was a convenient talking point to use against "Bush's War in Iraq".

2. Do we have a clear, attainable objective?

Yes. The clear, attainable objective is to beat the crap out of the Taliban and kill them so that they can no longer mount a credible threat to the existence of the legitimate and legitimately-elected government of Afghanistan. The secondary objective is to help that government become self-sufficient so that they can deal with the threat themselves. Both of these goals are very attainable, given the right resources, some time and by leaving the soldiers alone to do their jobs.

3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

Again, the answer is yes. Unfortunately, that analysis has been ignored, and our political leadership is draging its feet. THAT is what is causing the casualty rates to be as high as they are in Afghanistan. If they would get their collective thumbs out of their butts and commit to fighting the war as it SHOULD be fought, casualties would be lower, the war would conclude faster and the enemy ould no longer be a threat. It does no good to analyze the costs and risks of the war if you are going to ignore the results of that analysis and use the WORST possible strategy to fight that war.

4. Have all non-violent policy means been exhausted?

Gee, I don't know... have we tried to make peace with the murdering, raping, stealing, kleptocratic Mullahs of Afghanistan who abuse their own women and murder people of different faiths and religious factions as a matter of course and financially and materially support terrorism?

There are SOME people we shouldn't be trying to make peace with.

Nevertheless, between when the Taliban came into power and 2001, we did indeed try to deal with them peacefully and as equals. They were having none of it, and instead supported our enemies that killed 3,000 of our people in cold blood. At that point, trying to use non-violent means to keep the USA safe went right out the window.

5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

Yep. We will exit when the war is over.

Do you have an exit strategy for your job? Or do you go back to work every day, doing the same thing over and over again? What makes people think that we're supposed to have an "exit strategy" that is anything short of complete victory? Where did this idea come from? It isn't a MILITARY concept, that's for sure.

I wonder if Alexander the Great or Napoleon, or Attilla the Hun ever worried about exit strategies. Probably not... they were more interested in WINNING THE WAR!!

6. Have all the consequences of our action been fully considered?

Yep. When the enemy is dead, the consequences will be a free Afghanistan, and a USA that has one less threat to worry about from the Taliban.

7. Is the action supported by the American people?

It was until we came up with this Vietnam-era strategy for handling the war instead of actually FIGHTING TO WIN. When we went into Afghanistan, support for the war was over 80%. Even when support for the Iraq war was at an all-time low, there was still majority support for the war in Afghanistan. Even Obama supported the war in Afghanistan, calling it the "right" war, compared to Iraq, which he called the "wrong" war. Only after the American people saw how poorly the war is being handled by our political leaders did support for the war drop. Change the strategy and the support will come back as it did in Iraq after the troop surge.

8. Do we have broad international support?

Do we care? Why? Are we supposed to determine our national security interests based on what others think? Do those other bodies have our best interests at heart?

Nevertheless, here is the list of nations that have or had troops in Afghanistan:

Australia
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France (like they matter)
Germany
Hungary
India
Italy (not a great military history there, but at least they're not French)
Lithuania
Netherlands
New Zeland
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Rumania
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
USA

In addition, Colombia has agreed to send some troops over during 2009.

22 countries... plus the USA. Does that constitute a broad enough coalition?

I think that all 8 questions can be satisfactorily answered.

Now... can we just listen to the commander on the ground and get the hell out of the way of the people actually trying to fight the war, please?

Elliot

tomder55

Sep 22, 2009, 06:55 AM

excon

Sep 22, 2009, 07:09 AM

The fact that it ended up being leaked to Bob Woodward indicates a possible split between the President and his commanders. Should be interesting to see where this goes .Hello again, tom:

The commanders want to WIN. We want commanders who want to do that... But, commanders are soldiers. Their job is war. Our president is Commander-In-Chief. HIS job is politics. We WANT presidents to do that. That's why the founders arranged things like they did..

I'm continually amazed at how smart those guys were.

excon

ETWolverine

Sep 22, 2009, 07:10 AM

Hello Elliot:

I believe ME.

It's MY view, that the US can NEVER be defeated by a foreign army because of WHO WE ARE. We're a snarly lot. We have guns. We LIKE our freedom. We AIN'T gonna give up. We ARE gonna form insurgencies, and we'll fight 'em to the last man. If they wanna beat us, it's gonna take ONE soldier to watch EACH citizen, and I don't think ANY army has enough soldiers to do that...

Afghanistan is a LOT like us in that regard, for completely different reasons, of course... But, the reasons don't change anything on the ground. It's gonna take ONE of our soldiers to watch EACH one of them, and we ain't got that many.

excon

Oh... I get it... it's OK to let the USA get attacked on our own land because the enemy can't beat us anyway. Avoiding civilian casualties by making sure those attacks never take place by killing the enemy in HIS home isn't really something we should try to do.

Tell that to the families of 3,000 dead people on September 11, 2001. I'm pretty sure that they would have preferred NOT to take the hit just to prove that we could survive it... that we had taken out the enemy before they came here.

And what makes you so sure that we're unbeatable? We're only unbeatable if the 2nd Amendment remains unmolested and guns remain legal for everyone to own... which most certainly is NOT going to be the case under the tofu-eating Lib Congress we currently have. You want fighting Americans who aren't going to knuck under? Then they have to have the tools to fight with. And Obama ain't going to let them have those tools. Which means we ARE beatable.

Don't be so sure about our invincibility, Excon. A couple of nukes in major cities that kill a quarter million people in a single shot will change the equation rather quickly... which is why we need to keep the SOBs fighting OVER THERE instead of letting them get HERE.

If you think Americans can't stomach a war in Afghanistan with 1,400 casualties, how do you think they'll react to 250,000 dead in an instant in a major city, with hundreds of thousands more dying from radiation sickness over the next 6 months? And the threat of MORE bombs going off at any moment.

Frankly, if it was Israel, we'd see the biggest baddest nastiest fight we'd ever dream of as the Israelis kicked the @sses of every Arab country in the region. But with the tofu-eating American public that demands an accounting of every single casualty and cares more for the rights of terrorists than their own soldiers..

Sorry, excon... I used to think we were unbeatable too. And our MILITARY still is. But the average American? Sheeple, the whole lot of them. Which is why we have to rely on the military to do the job FOR us BEFORE the enemy gets here.

Elliot

speechlesstx

Sep 22, 2009, 08:34 AM

If McCrystal's memo went through the chain of command then it most likely is approved and supported by Gen. Petraeus and Joint Chief Chair U.S. Navy Adm. Mike Mullen .
The fact that it ended up being leaked to Bob Woodward indicates a possible split between the President and his commanders. Should be interesting to see where this goes .

This apparently goes to McChrystal resigning if Obama doesn't give him what he needs (http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2009/09/mcchrystal_to_resign_if_not_gi.php).

tomder55

Sep 22, 2009, 08:37 AM

Nice pick up.. Bill Roggio has been one of my primary sources since he began covering the war against jihadistan.

excon

Sep 22, 2009, 09:03 AM

McChrystal resigning if Obama doesn't give him what he needsHello Steve:

And, he should. If Tommy Franks had the balls to quit when he was given a NO WIN job, we'da been out of Iraq LONG ago, or we'da went in with ENOUGH troops to DO the job.

We either DO it, and I agree with the Wolverine that we CAN, or we DON'T. Fiddle farking around does NOTHING but get our guys killed. Good for McChrystal for bringing it to a head. You can't incrementally win a war.. You got to WIN it, or you got to skedattle.

excon

ETWolverine

Sep 22, 2009, 09:51 AM

Hello Steve:

And, he should. If Tommy Franks had the balls to quit when he was given a NO WIN job, we'da been out of Iraq LONG ago, or we'da went in with ENOUGH troops to DO the job.

I don't think so.

World leaders of all types have a habbit of hunting down and recruiting the "military leaders" who will do the job the way they want it to be done. If Bush intended to go to war, regardless of what anyone else was saying about NOT going to war (and that was NOT the case... support for the war was actually very high in the beginning), AND if he was going to do it the way HE wanted, regardless of what Tommy Franks was saying about more boots on the ground, then Franks quitting wouldn't have changed anything. Bush would simply have gotten another general more willing to do it Bush's way. We still would have been in the war, and we probably wouldn't have had as competent a military commander to lead the operation. The result would have been the same or WORSE.

It doesn't take a military leader who's willing to walk away... it takes a leader who's willing to stay and FORCE his position on his civilian leaders in order to get the job done. A guy like David Petreus, for instance.

We either DO it, and I agree with the Wolverine that we CAN, or we DON'T. Fiddle farking around does NOTHING but get our guys killed. Good for McChrystal for bringing it to a head. You can't incrementally win a war.. You got to WIN it, or you got to skedattle.

Excon

I agree on this point. $h!t or get off the pot.

Elliot

tomder55

Sep 22, 2009, 10:02 AM

The commanders want to WIN. We want commanders who want to do that... But, commanders are soldiers. Their job is war. Our president is Commander-In-Chief. HIS job is politics. We WANT presidents to do that. That's why the founders arranged things like they did..

I'm continually amazed at how smart those guys were.

Jim Webb said "We have reached a turning point in Afghanistan as to whether we are going to formally adopt nation-building as a policy,"
US faces 'nation-building' choice on Afghanistan - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090921/pl_afp/usafghanistannatomilitaryunrestpoliticswebb_200909 21185133)

And it's a fair question to raise. The President said a number of times Sunday that he was “going to be assessing, both our strategy and its implementation constantly”. Which I guess is fair although I have the impression he does that in lieu of making decisions.

But here is another Vietnam comparison which I'm concerned the President is prone to duplicate . LBJ said “them boys over there can’t bomb an outhouse without my permission”. Obama's decisions to this point does not convince me he will let his " win ".

paraclete

Sep 22, 2009, 02:52 PM

speechlesstx

Sep 28, 2009, 02:52 PM

How many times has our Commander-in-chief talked with the man charged with executing the Afghan mission? Once (http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/sep/28/us-commander-of-afghanistan-only-talked-to-obama-o/).

The military general credited with capturing Saddam Hussein and killing the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, says he has spoken with President Obama only once since taking command in Afghanistan.

"I’ve talked to the president, since I’ve been here, once on a VTC [video teleconference]," Gen. Stanley McChrystal told CBS reporter David Martin in a television interview that aired Sunday.

"You’ve talked to him once in 70 days?" Mr. Martin followed up.

"That is correct," the general replied.

I guess he's been too busy on TV and with his worldwide apology tour (and now his trip to Copenhagen to win the Olympics for Chicago) to actually discuss his war of choice with his commander.

excon

Sep 28, 2009, 02:56 PM

I guess he's been too busy on TV and with his worldwide apology tour (and now his trip to Copenhagen to win the Olympics for Chicago) to actually discuss his war of choice with his commander.Hello again, Steve:

I don't know, Steve. You don't think they got telephones?? Dude!

excon

speechlesstx

Sep 28, 2009, 03:19 PM

Hello again, Steve:

I dunno, Steve. You don't think they got telephones??? Dude!

excon

You notice I said "talked" with? Did you notice the general said "I’ve talked to the president, since I’ve been here, once on a VTC?"

Did you notice the follow-up was, "You’ve talked to him once in 70 days?" And the general's response was "That is correct."

Yeah, they have phones. Obama needs to use them.

excon

Sep 28, 2009, 03:23 PM

Obama needs to use them.Hello again, Steve:

DUDE! Apologizin is MUCH more important...

excon

Wondergirl

Sep 28, 2009, 03:48 PM

what there was to win?
Yeah. What is there to win? I bet if we stay there another 50 years, we still wouldn't have "won" it.

speechlesstx

Sep 28, 2009, 04:14 PM

Hello again, Steve:

DUDE! Apologizin is MUCH more important...

Apparently, LOL.

tomder55

Sep 29, 2009, 02:26 AM

Considering that McChrystal is the President's hand picked field commander this news is mind boggling.

As for the OP ;there is a split in the administration between those who want counter-insurgency and those like Biden (gee let's split Iraq into 3 parts ) who argue for a much more limited counter-terrorism strategy . No one is pushing for a get out now exit strategy.

ETWolverine

Sep 29, 2009, 08:32 AM

I seem to remember Obama saying that Afghanistan was the war we had to fight... the "right" war... the one that was REALLY important, where Iraq was just a distraction. Afghanistan was going to be the place he redeployed our troops from Iraq, in order to put them where they were "really needed"... remember his "phased redeployment" crap?

Why is the guy who touted Afghanistan as the correct war to be fighting only talking to his senior field commander once in 70 days? And why is he no longer willing to "redeploy" troops to Afghanistan?

Of course we already know the answer...

As Wilson said, he lied.

About EVERYTHING. Foreign policy, domestic policy, economics, social issues... there is NOTHING that Obama hasn't lied about.

Wilson shouldn't have been disciplined. He should have been given a medal for having the guts to say what we all know is true to the President's face.

Elliot

speechlesstx

Sep 29, 2009, 08:45 AM

Elliot, it's like we've said before it's all about Obama. He doesn't give a crap about anything that isn't about Obama. Why do you think he's traveling to Copenhagen to push our Olympic bid for Chicago instead of talking about his war of choice with his commander, dealing with Iran - even pushing his health care nonsense? The word is the Olympics could be a done deal if Obama makes a cameo... and it's all about Obama.

excon

Sep 29, 2009, 08:46 AM

Hello again, El:

Sniveling about him ain't going to do it. But, that's all you got left.

excon

ETWolverine

Sep 29, 2009, 08:58 AM

Hello again, El:

Sniveling about him ain't gonna do it. But, that's all you got left.

excon

Nah... I got the 2010 and 2012 elections.

But I don't see you denying the charge that Obama lied every step of the way.

You know I'm right. You just don't have the brass to admit it.

That's OK, though... your silence speaks quite eloquently.

Elliot

smearcase

Sep 29, 2009, 09:30 AM

excon

Sep 29, 2009, 09:45 AM

Hello smear:

**greenie**

excon

speechlesstx

Sep 29, 2009, 01:12 PM

Of course it's all political, Obama was "just words" with all his rhetoric about Afghanistan being a priority. His only having spoken with his hand-picked commander there even makes sense now. Remember Hillary running an ad during the campaign on this?

Hillary For President
“True”
TV : 30

Announcer: Barack Obama says he has the judgment to be president.

But as chairman of an oversight committee charged with the force of fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan–he was too busy running for president to hold even one hearing.

Barack Obama: “I became chairman of this committee, at the beginning of this campaign-at the beginning of 2007, so it is true that we haven’t had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.”

Announcer: Hillary Clinton will never be too busy to defend our national security-bringing our troops home from Iraq and pursing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Hillary Clinton: “I’m Hillary Clinton and I approved this message.”

Seems every time he's put in charge of something related to Afghanistan he goes AWOL to work on his permanent campaign.

ETWolverine

Sep 29, 2009, 01:44 PM

The decision is being pondered and pondered and pondered some more, while our troops are awaiting reinforcements, or orders to pack up and leave. A Marine from 40 miles away from me was killed over the weekend, on the second day of his second tour. Malicki in Iraq has control of over 100,000 U.S. troops while the Afghan U.S. commander is being told not to request troops until they tell him to. The multiple tours are crimininal. If we want to fight multiple wars, we should support the right number of troops to do it, whatever it takes. I believe the current delay in making a decision is 100% political a** covering and has nothing to do with protecting our troops. We need large numbers of troops to win these wars (if I am not mistaken, we had 500,000 troops in VN at one point. That stirred up the protesters and the politicians because it started getting personal). I am a veteran but not an expert, but those kinds of numbers of troops means reinstituting the draft, if we are going to commit our young folks to wage these wars. Exposing the same soldiers to combat over and over, until many don't come back, while life goes on normally for the rest of us, is shameful. Personally, I believe that while we have so much equipment and so many troops in the Middle East we will never have a better shot at accomplishing what we need to do there, so long as we are committed to winning. If I were Obama, I would put an emergency measure in Congress to reinstitute the draft, and let Congress share in the heat. I realize that is radical but we need Congress and the American people to show their cards.

I agree with everything except one point...

"Malicki in Iraq has control of over 100,000 U.S. troops..."

What do you mean by "control"? Can Maliki order the troops into or out of combat? My understanding is that the troops are under the full command of their officers. Can Maliki break the chain of command?

Am I misunderstanding your statement? Or do you have some information that I haven't read that says that Maliki is in charge of our troops in Iraq.

In general, however, I am in complete agreement... it's time for Obama and Congress to $h!t or get off the pot in Afghanistan. We CAN accomplish the mission of eliminating the Taliban as a credible threat in Afghanistan, if we just get off the button and fight the damn war.

We have the best trained troops in world history, using the best equipment in history, and each of our troops have just about the most combat experience in history as well. There have been very few armies in history that have seen ongoing military action for 8 years with 95%+ survival rates for that period. Our soldiers have accumulated actual experience in combat that has not existed in any modern army before... or certainly not in the last half century. (Even the most experienced combat troops of WWII didn't serve for 8 years under constant combat conditions.) This experience makes them even better for their jobs than the US military of 10 years ago, which was already the best in the world.

With that level of military assets, we could accomplish the mission in Afghanistan if we wanted to.

If not, we should get out.

Elliot

mmobley

Sep 29, 2009, 02:25 PM

I agree but would like to add too. The citizens of Afgjanistan are not interested in picking up a weapon a fighting for themselves. They want this war fought for them. In the meantime, our soldiers are not allowed to fight. They are supposed to let the ANP or the ANA, (I believe that's correct,) fight for them. My husband is deployed for the second time in two and half years, and while the Taliban sets up trap checkpoints our soldiers hunker down in their MRAPS like pu**ies and wait for the ANP to handle the situation. Instead of allowing our soldiers to fight and handle their business, our government wants to play paddicake with terrorists. You will never win a war that way. NEVER! Meanwhile, our brave young men are dying.

earl237

Sep 30, 2009, 01:06 PM

This war is just putting the U.S. deeper into debt and is not accomplishing anything useful. Bring the troops home.

ETWolverine

Sep 30, 2009, 01:14 PM

This war is just putting the U.S. deeper into debt and is not accomplishing anything useful. Bring the troops home.

Earl,

Does that mean that if they WERE accomplishing something that you would be in favor of staying? If our troops were allowed to do their jobs and were given the assets needed to do their jobs, would you be OK with letting them do so?

I am not challenging you, I'm just trying to understand your position.

Elliot

tomder55

Oct 1, 2009, 06:38 AM

POTUS is going to cut and run as soon as he can make it look like it is not cut and run. What he doesn't want is Code Pinko and Cindy Sheehad rallies on the Mall in front of the WH protesting against him.

How he wants to do this is becoming evident. McCrystal will be overruled by Sec Def Gates . The rest was revealed by Laura Rozen in Politico . Les Gelb of the CFR agrees that POTUS has no patients for the McCrystal plan and says the President should pay off elements of the Taliban to give us cover .

What should the U.S. do then? “We have to do a lot of different things, including rent and deal with the Taliban,” Gelb said. “We can rent a whole bunch of Taliban fighters, and pull away some of the leadership, by allowing them to go back and exercise power in Pashtun territory. And by the time you finish that, and do it well, it will have weakened the Taliban.”

Wise men advice to Obama's war council - Laura Rozen - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0909/Wise_men_advice_to_Obamas_war_council.html)

Beyond that ;the President will adopt the Biden counter-terrorism strategy; [which stripped of veneer is similar to the Clintoon strategery of lobbing bombs from a safe distance and pretending to be a CIC], over the McCrystal counterinsurgency and claim he will "get "Bin Laden.

excon

Oct 1, 2009, 07:12 AM

POTUS is going to cut and runHello again, tom:

Cutting and running is a GOOD strategy when you realize that the only way to possisbly win is to institute a draft and ship a HALF MILLION or MORE of our fighting men and women over there.. In fact, it's an extremely GOOD strategy when you realize the country won't go along with it.

It WOULD be a good idea for Obama to re-enforce exactly what we're going to WIN if we do stay, because it's not clear to me anymore. Oh, yeah, way back then, before we started what is SOON to become our LONGEST war in history, it made some sense... But, the dufus screwed it up soooooooooooo bad, especially when he DIDN'T get Bin Laden when he COULD have, that it makes NO sense to stay.

One thing Obama isn't, is dumb.

excon

speechlesstx

Oct 1, 2009, 07:28 AM

So Obama wants to outsource his war of choice and handle our part from a safe distance while blathering about the need to "disrupt, dismantle and destroy al- Qaeda, prevent it from having a safe haven..."

Obviously the guy doesn't really stand for much of anything except compromise, apologizing for America, punishing our allies and appeasing dictators.

tomder55

Oct 1, 2009, 07:33 AM

I believe McCrystal when he says 30-40,000 will do the trick .

tomder55

Oct 1, 2009, 07:34 AM

So Obama wants to outsource his war of choice

The funny thing is that is exactly what Ex just criticized President Bush for doing.

excon

Oct 1, 2009, 07:40 AM

So Obama wants to outsource his war of choice and handle our part from a safe distance while blathering about the need to "disrupt, dismantle and destroy al- Qaeda, prevent it from having a safe haven..." Hello again, Steve:

Psssst.. Here's a secret. Al Quaida isn't in Afghanistan any more. They're in Pakistan. We had NO clear strategy when we went in, so it's no wonder we're floundering now. The war, like Iraq, has evolved into an insurgency - which has the support of the people - and that's NOT a war we'll EVER win..

I'm not trying to convince you, Steve or tom. I know you're WILLING to send in our boys and girls. You were willing to send 'em to Iraq. You were willing to send 'em to Afghanistan. And, you're going to be willing to send 'em to Iran..

The only thing your NOT willing to do, is send in YOUR OWN FAMILY.

excon

PS> By the way, you're willing to BORROW from our GRANDCHILDREN to fight your wars too. So, of course, all the rhetoric about Democrat spending is a lot of hooey, isn't it? I KNOW who you guys are.

excon

Oct 1, 2009, 07:44 AM

I believe McCrystal when he says 30-40,000 will do the trick .Hello tom:

You're not saying, are you, that the Vietnam war STARTED with 500,000 troops?? You don't think Westmorland said the same thing to Johnson that McCrystal is saying to Obama?? You poor righty's don't have much of a memory, do you?

excon

tomder55

Oct 1, 2009, 08:03 AM

I'm not trying to convince you, Steve or tom. I know you're WILLING to send in our boys and girls. You were willing to send 'em to Iraq. You were willing to send 'em to Afghanistan. And, you're going to be willing to send 'em to Iran..

The only thing your NOT willing to do, is send in YOUR OWN FAMILY.

Yeah yeah ;I know... the wrong war is whatever war that is being fought. To briefly reply to your personal attack;I have family members in the military .As far as "sending them "... my daughter is an adult quite capable of making her own choices.

You want to be angry at something ;try being angry at Obama who pretended to support their mission during the campaign for political expediency.

tomder55

Oct 1, 2009, 08:10 AM

Hello tom:

You're not saying, are you, that the Vietnam war STARTED with 500,000 troops?? You don't think Westmorland said the same thing to Johnson that McCrystal is saying to Obama?? You poor righty's don't have much of a memory, do you?

Nope . I'm saying that when the strategy of Vietnamization and counterinsurgency was implemented in Vietnam the war was well on it's way to being won. That is until the Democrats decided to cut the rug from under the program by ending the financing of the plan.

speechlesstx

Oct 1, 2009, 08:16 AM

Psssst.. Here's a secret. Al Quaida isn't in Afghanistan any more. They're in Pakistan.

That's a secret? Is the Taliban still in Afghanistan?

The only thing your NOT willing to do, is send in YOUR OWN FAMILY.

That's quite an unfounded insult.

PS> By the way, you're willing to BORROW from our GRANDCHILDREN to fight your wars too. So, of course, all the rhetoric about Democrat spending is a lot of hooey, isn't it? I KNOW who you guys are.

This is now Obama's war of choice, he has to own it.

excon

Oct 1, 2009, 08:18 AM

You want to be angry at something ;try being angry at Obama who pretended to support their mission during the campaign for political expediency.Hello again, tom:

We ALL supported the mission in the beginning. But, when there was no effort to WIN, our capital was SPENT, and it's time to go.

The problem you guys got is, it doesn't matter WHAT changes occur on the ground, you've got this misguided belief that we can't leave because it somehow dishonors the dead soldiers... So, you're willing to risk MORE dead soldiers in the name of HONORING those already dead? Makes no sense to me.

In the Vietnam era, we HAD discussions like THIS one, when our casualty's numbered around 5,000 dead soldiers... Then, because we listened to people like you, another 50,000 or our young men were slaughtered... Lot's of honor there, all right...

excon

speechlesstx

Oct 1, 2009, 08:34 AM

We ALL supported the mission in the beginning. But, when there was no effort to WIN, our capital was SPENT, and it's time to go.

I certainly don't support a half-a$$ed effort, which is what this President seems hellbent on doing in spite of his bravado on the campaign tail.

“It’s time to heed the call from General McKiernan and others for more troops. That’s why I’d send at least two or three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan. We also need more training for Afghan Security forces, more non-military assistance to help Afghans develop alternatives to poppy farming, more safeguards to prevent corruption, and a new effort to crack down on cross-border terrorism. Only a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes Afghanistan and the fight against al Qaeda will succeed, and that’s the change I’ll bring to the White House.”

"The Afghan government needs to do more. But we have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism"

"I think one of the biggest mistakes we've made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq."

Just words?

excon

Oct 1, 2009, 08:56 AM

"I think one of the biggest mistakes we've made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq.".... Just words?Hello again, Steve:

Not at all. He's saying the SAME thing I'm saying. We FAILED 8 years ago. THAT failure caused the Taliban to REINFILTRATE the country, and pretty much take it ALL BACK.

THAT is NOT a good result... But, at this point in time, considering ALL the facts on the ground, as they are TODAY, is THIS the time to commit the troops we SHOULD have committed back then?? I don't think so.

I'm NOT an incrementalist when it comes to war. If you recall, MY take back then was to go ALL IN. We DIDN'T and because we didn't, we FAILED. These things DO matter.

excon

speechlesstx

Oct 1, 2009, 09:01 AM

Not at all. He's saying the SAME thing I'm saying. We FAILED 8 years ago. THAT failure caused the Taliban to REINFILTRATE the country, and pretty much take it ALL BACK.

And his other point was he was going to get the job done. Just words?

I'm NOT an incrementalist when it comes to war. If you recall, MY take back then was to go ALL IN. We DIDN'T and because we didn't, we FAILED. These things DO matter.

I think I said I'm not for a half-a$$ed effort. Git 'er done.

ETWolverine

Oct 1, 2009, 09:20 AM

Hello tom:

You're not saying, are you, that the Vietnam war STARTED with 500,000 troops??? You don't think Westmorland said the same thing to Johnson that McCrystal is saying to Obama??? You poor righty's don't have much of a memory, do you?

excon

Funny thing about Vietnam, excon. We won every single battle, but lost the war anyway.

The issue in Vietnam wasn't a lack of troops. In fact, we had TOO LARGE a troop presence in Vietnam. Our troops were practically stepping on each others' heels. The issue in Vietnam was a lack of willingness to press home the battle to the point of victory.

That is the same question we are facing in Afghanistan. IF we are willing to press home the attack and win the war, the 40-50,000 more troops will be enough to do the job. However, if we are unwilling to do so, then 500,000 won't be enough.

We don't need to institute a draft to win in Afghanistan any more than we needed one in Iraq. What we need is the conviction to win. If we have that, then an additional 40,000 added to the approximately 60,000 that we currently have there now (30,000 in Operation Enduring Freedom and 30,000 in the ISAF) will be enough to accomplish the job. If we don't have that conviction, no number of troops will be enough to win and we ought to leave. Either way, a draft is unnecessary.

Elliot

Wondergirl

Oct 1, 2009, 10:31 AM

IF we are willing to press home the attack and win the war
Win what? I don't know what "win" means in this "war."

ETWolverine

Oct 1, 2009, 11:51 AM

Win what? I don't know what "win" means in this "war."

That's because you haven't been paying attention.

"Win" in the military sense means that we created a situation in which the Taliban and Al Qaeda are no longer a viable threat to the security and survival of Afghanistan or American assets in Afghanistan. It also means that Afghanistan becomes a place from which Al Qaeda and the Taliban can not launch, support or aid terrorism or terrorist attacks, especially those against the USA.

Elliot

Wondergirl

Oct 1, 2009, 12:53 PM

That's because you haven't been paying attention.

"Win" in the military sense means that we created a situation in which the Taliban and Al Qaeda are no longer a viable threat to the security and survival of Afghanistan or American assets in Afghanistan. It also means that Afghanistan becomes a place from which Al Qaeda and the Taliban can not launch, support or aid terrorism or terrorist attacks, especially those against the USA.

Elliot
We will never win no matter how long we stay there. We think with our Western brain that we will win, but it's not possible. Afghanistan is too big and too much of a wilderness with too many unfriendly and uncooperative tribes to monitor every inch of the country.

speechlesstx

Oct 1, 2009, 01:25 PM

We will never win no matter how long we stay there. We think with our Western brain that we will win, but it's not possible.

And I bet you probably think talking to Ahmadinejad will convince Iran to end their nuclear program.

ETWolverine

Oct 1, 2009, 01:32 PM

We will never win no matter how long we stay there. We think with our Western brain that we will win, but it's not possible.

Actually, considering that I used to live in the Middle East, I think I have a better understanding of the Middle Eastern mind than you do. It is from that perspective that I say that if we leave, we lose.

From the perspective of the Arab, if we leave it is because we are either too weak or too decadent to fight, which is just another form of weakness. Weakness is something to be exploited. Weakness is an invitation to attack. Therefore, leaving would be perceived as an invitation to attack us again here as they did at 9/11.

Between 1987 and 2007, Israel made several attempts to "leave" the West Bank and Gaza. They had unilateral troop removals. They had peace accords. They had agreements. They even dismantled cities and forcably removed their own citizens from Gaza and the West Bank. The result of every single one of those attempts was increase violence by the Palestinians... more suicide bombings, more missile and mortar attacks, etc. The Palestinians were EMBOLDENED by attempts by Israel to avoid war. They viewed it as a statement by Israel that they were not willing to stand and fight, that they were too weak.

By contrast, when the Israeli military took action... when they raided Palestinian villages to take out known terrorists, when they destroyed the homes of terrorists, when they took strong military action, the Palestianians DECREASED the number of attacks against Israel.

The contrast is shocking... and very contrary to the "civilized" western mindset. But the incidence of terrorist attacks can be plotted on a graph, and the correlation between strong action by the Israeli military and a DECREASE can be easily demonstrated.

The same is true in virtually every Islamic country. The fundamentalist activity in any Islamic country INCREASES when people are trying to "talk" and avoid conflict or violence. It dramatically DECREASES when there are signs that someone is getting ready to, or when somebody actually does, take strong military action against the fundametalist elements.

Ahmadinejad of Iran is a perfect example of this. Under George Bush, we heard very little from him about his Holocaust denial or his desire to wipe Israel off the map or his "demand" to be allowed to set up a nuclear weapons program. He was relatively quiet when Bush was in office because he knew that Bush wouldn't blink twice at bombing his a$$. Oh, he made some occasional noises, but he was definitely NOT as bold as he is today... under a President who wants to "talk" and who's goal is to unilaterally disarm our nuclear arsenal. Since Obama took office, Ahmadinejad has made quite a few speaches denouncing Israel and swearing again to wipe them off the map, denouncing the Holocaust as a fraud, and has tested several different types of long-range missiles, as well as continuing and expanding his nuclear weapons program. That's because he knows that Obama won't do anything to stop him.

I could give lots of historical examples from Middle Eastern History since the 12th Century where this was true. Attempts at "peace" are not honored by the Arab, they are seen as weakness and are almost ALWAYS responded to by attack.

The bottom line is that you do not understand the Middle Eastern mind.

Leaving Afghanistan may be the correct thing to do for OUR OWN reasons. But don't ever think that it is the way to decrease attacks coming from the Middle East. It will, in fact, result in the exact opposite... an increase in attacks coming from the Middle East.

Only by being strong THERE can we be relatively secure here.

As for winning in Afghanistan, it CAN be done. People like to claim that nobody has ever been able to defeat the natives in the mountains, but that simply isn't true. The Mongols did it in the 13th century. The Hotaki Empire did it in the early 1700s. So did the Durrani Empire in the late 1700s. The Sikhs nearly did it again 100 years later. It has been done, and it CAN be done again. Especially when you consider that our soldiers are better trained, better educated, better equipped, and are in better physical shape than the soldiers of any other army in history... including the armies that accomplished these victories in the past.

So the argument that "we can't win in the Afghani mountains" is pure crap.

The Russians couldn't do it because they were poorly trained and poorly equipped and their leadership had no stomach for a fight and didn't send the proper resources to do the job. Instead, they made the mistake of maintaining a troop presence there without committing to winning the fight... kind of like Obama is doing now. With the Soviet system near bankruptcy, their war in Afghanistan became a huge drain on their economic resources... kind of like Obama is doing to us now. They also had to contend with the fact that WE were helping fund, equip and train the Mujahadeen, which was a factor that the Russians could not overcome without the proper assets in place. But with the right mindset and the proper allocation of assets, the Russians could have won the war, even with our interference.

As could we, if we are willing to allocate the proper resources and manpower and are willing to actually use the appropriate ROE.

The Afghani mountains are no insurmountable obstacle, and they do not make Afghanistan or the Taliban unbeatable. Don't fall for that boogeyman story. It just isn't true.

Elliot

Wondergirl

Oct 1, 2009, 02:19 PM

The Afghani mountains are no insurmountable obstacle, and they do not make Afghanistan or the Taliban unbeatable. Don't fall for that boogeyman story. It just isn't true.
Thanks for the put-downs and the lecture.

Terrorism is not something that can be defeated with guns and tanks. That's why we cannot win. It has no location except in someone's head and heart. Even if we killed every resident of Afghanistan, we would not defeat terrorism.

Catsmine

Oct 1, 2009, 04:22 PM

Thanks for the put-downs and the lecture.

Terrorism is not something that can be defeated with guns and tanks. That's why we cannot win. It has no location except in someone's head and heart. Even if we killed every resident of Afghanistan, we would not defeat terrorism.

You have just made Elliot's point. The problem is that getting Pashtans and Arabs to open their hearts and heads has always, since Suleman's time, been with your foot on their necks. They will not respect you enough to listen otherwise.
Further evidence can be found in any schoolyard. 13 year old American males have the same barbaric mindset. Sometimes Americans grow up. It's a shame grown up Americans so seldom enter politics.

Wondergirl

Oct 1, 2009, 04:41 PM

You have just made Elliot's point. The problem is that getting Pashtans and Arabs to open their hearts and heads has always, since Suleman's time, been with your foot on their necks. They will not respect you enough to listen otherwise.
Further evidence can be found in any schoolyard. 13 year old American males have the same barbaric mindset. Sometimes Americans grow up. It's a shame grown up Americans so seldom enter politics.
So the fact that they have an "Eastern mindset" gives us permission to go in there and kill 'em all since they are all bullies and barbarians anyway? Kill them before they kill us?

speechlesstx

Oct 1, 2009, 05:00 PM

So the fact that they have an "Eastern mindset" gives us permission to go in there and kill 'em all since they are all bullies and barbarians anyway? Kill them before they kill us?

Basically, why not? Tell us how else you deal with a group of people that think blowing themselves to smithereens to kill a few Jews and other infidels is a good and honorable thing?

Wondergirl

Oct 1, 2009, 06:24 PM

Basically, why not? Tell us how else you deal with a group of people that think blowing themselves to smithereens to kill a few Jews and other infidels is a good and honorable thing?
The males are the ones who think that way, so let's get rid of them. The females just want a home and children and food and a roof over their heads.

Catsmine

Oct 1, 2009, 06:34 PM

So the fact that they have an "Eastern mindset" gives us permission to go in there and kill 'em all since they are all bullies and barbarians anyway? Kill them before they kill us?

Not "Eastern," barbaric is what I said. Most societies that have not developed above tribalism, like 13 year old boys, only respect those with demonstrated physical superiority. I admit to a trace of it, and a glow-in-the-dark Hindu Kush wouldn't bother me at all.

Killing them all, however, seems a little extreme. Enough to demonstrate our physical superiority so they'll negotiate in good faith, which their culture considers foolish to do with a weak or decadent opponent, we should do.

tomder55

Oct 1, 2009, 06:37 PM

Just words?

Apparently so . The President has been advised by his commander on the ground that a new strategy involving more troops is needed. This is not the same as Vietnam where Gen. Westmoreland continuously asked for additional troops without recommending a new strategy. The military learned the lesson of Westmoreland's legacy ,and General McCrystal by all accounts is one of the best in the ranks. His performance in Iraq with the capture of Saddam and the hunting down of Zarqawi by his Joint Special Operations task force demonstrated it.

Unlike Westmoreland he will not commit additional troops to a plan that will not succeed . He would resign first. He will also most likely step down if his request is denied.

paraclete

Oct 1, 2009, 08:33 PM

Not "Eastern," barbaric is what I said. Most societies that have not developed above tribalism, like 13 year old boys, only respect those with demonstrated physical superiority. I admit to a trace of it, and a glow-in-the-dark Hindu Kush wouldn't bother me at all.

Killing them all, however, seems a little extreme. Enough to demonstrate our physical superiority so they'll negotiate in good faith, which their culture considers foolish to do with a weak or decadent opponent, we should do.

So what you are saying is the way to deal with the Muslim world is to nuke them and you have no objection to this approach. You fail to realise that you have the same mindset as the terrorist you oppose, you are completely immature, even more so than those thirteen year old boys you dispise so much. It is no wonder the US has such great difficulty dealing with the rest of the world if this is the mindset of their people. Gunboat diplomacy never worked and is the reason the world is in the mess it is.

You are correct in saying that the Muslim don't respect you because you are decadent, they realise your word cannot be trusted, that you are their friend only so long as it suits you.

Catsmine

Oct 2, 2009, 02:07 AM

So what you are saying is the way to deal with the Muslim world is to nuke them and you have no objection to this approach. You fail to realise that you have the same mindset as the terrorist you oppose, you are completely immature, even more so than those thirteen year old boys you dispise so much. It is no wonder the US has such great difficulty dealing with the rest of the world if this is the mindset of their people. Gunboat diplomacy never worked and is the reason the world is in the mess it is.

You are correct in saying that the Muslim don't respect you because you are decadent, they realise your word cannot be trusted, that you are their friend only so long as it suits you.

Are you claiming to speak for a billion people spread across half the globe? The Muslim world is far vaster than the Arab, Pashtun, and Farsi speaking corner this discussion has been about.

I admitted to a trace of barbarism. I have lost friends to jihadists, and feel my anger and lust for vengeance is justified, but I do not let it rule me.

Your assuming generalities from specifics may prolong the argument, but will not win the debate.

tomder55

Oct 2, 2009, 04:27 AM

The left often has trouble defining winning .I don't know... Perhaps it's the education system that discourages such concepts as winning and losing .

Anyway ;General McCrystal gave an answer good enough for me when he spoke to an audience at the International 'Institute for Strategic Studies'. He said when asked if he could support Biden's scale back plan :
“The short answer is: no,” ...“You have to navigate from where you are, not where you wish to be. A strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short-sighted strategy.”
International Institute for Strategic Studies Watch the Address (http://www.iiss.org/recent-key-addresses/general-stanley-mcchrystal-address/watch-the-address/)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/01/gen_mcchrystals_address_on_afghanistan_98537.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/world/asia/02general.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Hard to tell what the President will do . Harry Reid gave him cover by delaying Gen. McCrystal's testimony before the Senate until the President returns from buying booze and hookers for IOC committee members .
You see... the Olympics are fun... Afghanistan seems too much like work .

speechlesstx

Oct 2, 2009, 05:21 AM

The males are the ones who think that way, so let's get rid of them. The females just want a home and children and food and a roof over their heads.

Female Suicide Bombers (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB408.pdf)

tomder55

Oct 2, 2009, 05:30 AM

The females just want a home and children and food and a roof over their heads.

Interesting take. Back in the 1990s when the Taliban was in power the faux outrage by the left about the treatment of the Afghani women by them certainly made me believe that they would be happy steps were taken to remove them from power never to return .
But ;I guess I was wrong about that and their defense of the rapist sodomizer Polanski also.

ETWolverine

Oct 2, 2009, 07:54 AM

Thanks for the put-downs and the lecture.

Terrorism is not something that can be defeated with guns and tanks.

Really?

I have never seen a dead terrorist set off a bomb, activate a suicide vest, or blow up a bus full of kids. Have you?

Having actually served in a military that was fighting terrorists LONG BEFORE 9/11, I can tell you for a certainty that dead terrorists can't kill anyone. The technique works quite well, actually.

However, what has failed repeatedly is the idea that "we can't win, no matter what we do, so we shouldn't bother."

Tell me, do you think that we should stop having cops because "we can never defeat crime... criminals have no location, criminal behavior exists in the hearts of the people"? The argument is exactly the same. Do we give up on fighting crime?

It is a foolish argument that fails every time.

Elliot

ETWolverine

Oct 2, 2009, 07:57 AM

So the fact that they have an "Eastern mindset" gives us permission to go in there and kill 'em all since they are all bullies and barbarians anyway? Kill them before they kill us?

Nope. Just the ones trying to torture, rape, blow up and murder people in the name of Allah.

And you object to this why?

ETWolverine

Oct 2, 2009, 08:07 AM

So what you are saying is the way to deal with the Muslim world is to nuke them and you have no objection to this approach.

Again, you are bringing up nukes. Why do you keep doing that?

The discussion in this thread, from the very beginning, has been about sending more ground troops and appropriate support, not nuking anyone.

You fail to realise that you have the same mindset as the terrorist you oppose,

Really?

Do you really think that we're in favor of raping, torturing, murdering and blowing up people because they don't follow the correct religious practices? Is that the mindset that you think we have? Because that is the mindset of the terrorists.

you are completely immature, even more so than those thirteen year old boys you dispise so much. It is no wonder the US has such great difficulty dealing with the rest of the world if this is the mindset of their people. Gunboat diplomacy never worked and is the reason the world is in the mess it is.

Actually, gunboat diplomacy has nevger FAILED. It ALWAYS works if you are willing to use the guns on the gunboat and have bigger, better and more gunboats than the other guy does.

Where it fails (and where it failed in Vietnam) is when you are NOT willing to use the guns on the gunboat. And when that happens, the enemy will believe that they can get away with anything because you aren't going to use the guns. The proper response to this is a judicious but firm use the guns to prove that if pushed too far you will indeed use the guns.

You are correct in saying that the Muslim don't respect you because you are decadent, they realise your word cannot be trusted, that you are their friend only so long as it suits you.

Yep... thanks to Obama they know that to be true now. After he threw his allies, Israel, Honduras, Poland and the Chek Republic under the bus, the rest of the world does indeed see that America can't be trusted to honor a commitment to an ally AND that we are too weak-minded to defend ourselves with force.

Elliot

Wondergirl

Oct 2, 2009, 09:12 AM

The left often has trouble defining winning
So what to you would mean a win?

Wondergirl

Oct 2, 2009, 09:16 AM

Nope. Just the ones trying to torture, rape, blow up and murder people in the name of Allah.
And you will find and identify them and the wannabe ones how? Their name is legion. They are like grey hairs -- for every one you pull out, three more pop up.

speechlesstx

Oct 2, 2009, 09:19 AM

And you will find and identify them and the wannabe ones how? Their name is legion. They are like grey hairs -- for every one you pull out, three more pop up.

So we do nothing?

Wondergirl

Oct 2, 2009, 09:21 AM

So we do nothing?
Answer my question, please.

speechlesstx

Oct 2, 2009, 09:30 AM

Answer my question, please.

It's an ongoing process, we do the very best we can in eliminating the terrorists, infiltrate, isolate, search and destroy, whatever it takes. As opposed to that mindset that pines for world peace and everyone living in harmony but thinks we can accomplish that with all those barbarians on the loose.

tomder55

Oct 2, 2009, 09:40 AM

So what to you would mean a win?
See #74

ETWolverine

Oct 2, 2009, 09:49 AM

And you will find and identify them and the wannabe ones how? Their name is legion. They are like grey hairs -- for every one you pull out, three more pop up.

Easy.

If they are hiding in the inhospitable caves and mountains of Afghanistan with guns, mortars, rockets and bomb-making materials, hiding from society, then they are the enemy. Kill them. Regular civillians don't hide in caves and mountains with bomb-making gear.

It is only once they are among the rest of society that they become difficult to distinguish from the rest of society. That is one of the main reasons to fight the Taliban in the mountains instead of giving them the opportunity to hide among the people. That's the easiest way to identify the enemy from our allies or from neutral parties.

Elliot

ETWolverine

Oct 2, 2009, 09:50 AM

They are like grey hairs -- for every one you pull out, three more pop up.

Then the best way to deal with them is to shave the head... get rid of all of the terrorists.

Wondergirl

Oct 2, 2009, 09:56 AM

However, what has failed repeatedly is the idea that "we can't win, no matter what we do, so we shouldn't bother."
I didn't say "don't bother." I said trying to kill all the terrorists won't work. Terrorists don't make up a standing army; terrorism is a tactic.

#74 is about female suicide bombers. It doesn't answer my question. And I should have said the majority of (Muslim) women only want peace, peace in which to raise their families.

Wondergirl

Oct 2, 2009, 09:59 AM

Then the best way to deal with them is to shave the head... get rid of all of the terrorists.
But you don't shave only once -- you will have to shave until the day you die and even after you die, the grey hairs will "grow" as the skin shrinks. You can't win even with grey hairs, much less with terrorists.

Wondergirl

Oct 2, 2009, 10:03 AM

Easy.

If they are hiding in the inhospitable caves and mountains of Afghanistan with guns, mortars, rockets and bomb-making materials, hiding from society, then they are the enemy. Kill them. Regular civillians don't hide in caves and mountains with bomb-making gear.
Good luck finding then in Afghanistan -- but wait! They are also hiding in Pakistan and Iraq and Iran and England and the U.S. and and...

ETWolverine

Oct 2, 2009, 10:10 AM

I didn't say "don't bother." I said trying to kill all the terrorists won't work. Terrorists don't make up a standing army; terrorism is a tactic.

Yes, you said it. But the statement was incorrect. As history has proven time and time again.

#74 is about female suicide bombers. It doesn't answer my question. And I should have said the majority of (Muslim) women only want peace, peace in which to raise their families.

Yes, and they are not the targets. Neither are the MAJORITY OF MALE Muslims who only want to live their lives and raise their families.

But the males and (growing number of) females who are NOT interested in peace and who want to kill civillians... should we ignore them because "trying to kill terrorism won't work"?

Do you want to know what the result of that would be?

Think Beirut in the 1980s.

Elliot

Wondergirl

Oct 2, 2009, 12:49 PM

Yes, you said it. But the statement was incorrect. As history has proven time and time again.
I did not say "don't bother" -- if you think I did, tell me where.

Yes, and they are not the targets. Neither are the MAJORITY OF MALE Muslims who only want to live their lives and raise their families.

But the males and (growing number of) females who are NOT interested in peace and who want to kill civillians... should we ignore them because "trying to kill terrorism won't work"?
I never said to ignore them. How would you separate out the "good" from the "bad"? Ask them?

firmbeliever

Oct 2, 2009, 03:01 PM

The way I see it,
Afghanistan has had to fight, with England, then Russian occupation,then the Taliban,and now add America to the list too and that is just counting the more recent past.

Situated as they are, everyday citizens have had to cope with the government siding with first one country and then another,and in between; add wars, not to mention their tribal fights and fights with their neighboring countries.

I am sure the Afghanis are wary of those who say they are being protected, or being saved, they don't even trust their own people.

I think by killing innocents in the name of eliminating terrorists, the probability of new fresh blood wanting to fight those who killed their families is higher with so many families dying.

Lets say this is a rough estimate of civilian deaths in Afghanistan for whichever reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282 001%E2%80%93present%29

And the statistics not including the dying soldiers of all countries involved.

An endless war with many more dying.

Just my two cents.

excon

Oct 2, 2009, 03:56 PM

I think by killing innocents in the name of eliminating terrorists, the probability of new fresh blood wanting to fight those who killed their families is higher with so many families dying.Hello firm:

You hit the nail on the head... This is the point that is totally lost on the right wing... It's very similar to their failed drug war. They think all they have to do is put all the drug dealers in jail... Then after they do that, they're surprised that somebody took their place...

They don't understand that there's lots and lots of people who aren't now terrorists, but who are going to BE terrorists the more we kill their families, the more we occupy their countries, the more we support their tyrannical leaders, and the more we torture and dehumanize them..

It's simple really. We can WIN the war by NOT fighting it...

excon

paraclete

Oct 2, 2009, 04:30 PM

An endless war with many more dying.

Just my two cents.

Yes, you are right, a people who have known nothing but war for most of their population and most of their lives, and America and its allies have the arrogance to try and win their hearts and minds with a few paved roads and some vague notion of security. They are better left alone to govern themselves, whatever that might mean, rather than being subject to the despotism they now experience.

If we want to help the Afghan people the way is to stop fighting and allow them to return home and settle. The Vietnamese didn't do a bad job after the US military left, perhaps the Afghans will be the same

tomder55

Oct 3, 2009, 02:54 AM

rather than being subject to the despotism they now experience.

Oh yeah ;the reign of the Taliban was much better .:rolleyes:

paraclete

Oct 3, 2009, 03:30 PM

oh yeah ;the reign of the Taliban was much better .:rolleyes:

Not necessarily, The Taliban were fighting a war which may have affected their judgement, in any event they are unlikely to be any worse than Iran and I don't see the US invading to impose "democracy" there. True democracy is allowing people to determine for themselves the form of government they will have, even if it is theocratic

inthebox

Oct 3, 2009, 03:38 PM

As it stands, the general "on the ground" states that there is not enough manpower to be successful, so Obama has an ultimatum.

Get out - in defeat.

Or

Put more manpower in to be successful - enough to establish security for the Afghan people and a stable government that does not habor terrorists or their training camps. More manpower to eliminate the taliban, which does require a lot of human intelligence.

Like US healthcare, Afghan strategy needs to be reformed.

G&P

Wondergirl

Oct 3, 2009, 03:44 PM

As it stands, the general "on the ground" states that there is not enough manpower to be successful, so Obama has an ultimatum.

Get out - in defeat.
It doesn't have to be in defeat.

Put more manpower in to be successful - enough to establish security for the Afghan people and a stable government that does not habor terrorists or their training camps. More manpower to eliminate the taliban, which does require a lot of human intelligence.
Afghanistan's stable government will be a theocracy. And the Taliban isn't going anywhere.

paraclete

Oct 3, 2009, 03:57 PM

Get out - in defeat.

More manpower to eliminate the Taliban, which does require a lot of human intelligence.

Afghan strategy needs to be reformed.

G&P

To eliminate the Taliban you have to eliminate the Pustun people, all 22 million of them. As the Pustun live in both Afghanistan and Pakistan this is no simple solution, it requires a regional war of significant proportions, not the hit and run tactics employed at the moment.

I fail to see why the US thinks it can win here, it isn't just a matter of knocking off the leaders, there will always be more leaders and a charismatic leader might arise. The US is an invader in the eyes of these people, they have no concept of an Afghan nation led by a democratic government. You saw the sort of campaign Pakistan had to wage to dislodge the Taliban from a small area and that fight certainly isn't over. It required the whole population to move out so that Pakistan could come to grips with the fighters. If you were to dislodge the Afghan population what would you achieve, just a humanitarian nightmare in Pakistan and perhaps the loss of Pakistan.

inthebox

Oct 3, 2009, 04:09 PM

It doesn't have to be in defeat.

Afghanistan's stable government will be a theocracy. And the Taliban isn't going anywhere.

If the taliban can contol Afghanistan, and harbor and train terrorists like they did pre-9/11, then yes it will be a defeat.

Para:

I won't call ALL 22 million Pashtun equivalent to the Taliban. Even so, the Anbar awakening demonstrates that power, security, working with the natives, and leading to a better alternative can be successful, unless you think Taliban rule is a good thing.

G&P

Wondergirl

Oct 3, 2009, 04:23 PM

If the taliban can contol Afghanistan, and harbor and train terrorists like they did pre-9/11, then yes it will be a defeat.
Why shouldn't the Taliban control Afghanistan? Then the mission will be to make sure the Taliban does not harbor and train terrorists.

paraclete

Oct 3, 2009, 05:08 PM

Para:

I won't call ALL 22 million Pashtun equivilent to the Taliban. Even so, the Anbar awakening demonstrates that power, security, working with the natives, and leading to a better alternative can be sucessful, unless you think Taliban rule is a good thing.

G&P

No Taliban rule is not a good thing but sometimes the ideal cannot be attained immediately. While you fight with them, there is no opportunity to move forward, but if you could reach an accommodation where they will not harbour terrorists, then you could disengage and help the people to develop. You cannot stop an idea with a gun. They see a theocratic regime without western ideas of morality as desirable. Development will ultimately kill the ideas the Taliban have, they know this, this is why they fearcely oppose education, modern music, television

inthebox

Oct 3, 2009, 05:51 PM

paraclete

Oct 3, 2009, 07:02 PM

Opinion | Afghanistan's women again face Taliban oppression | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2009015523_opinb10ellengoodman.html)

This is what the last 2 posters are looking at - defeat. I can accept that if national security and more American lives were no longer at stake. What makes you think that the pre 9/11 mindset will change if we leave now? because we asked them "pretty please?" Get real, we leave, they will justifiably see weakness and be even more emboldened. These jihadists saw leaving Somalia, in the 90s, as the US being a "paper tiger." History will repeat itself. See ET's posts on their mindset.

G&P

It is you who needs to get real and realise that their mindset will not change no matter what you do. The Taliban are not the Jihadists who attacked America on 9/11. Yes, they may have been fellow travellers, or they may have been opportunists, but they already see weakness, eight years of weakness, and many years before that. The US allowed the Taliban to establish themselves in Afghanistan and they could have cared less until Al Qaeda was found sheltering in Afghanistan. If the US had any sort of intelligence capability they would have known about Bin Laden and done something about him long before 9/11. It demonstrates that Clinton and Bush were asleep at the wheel and the people of Afghanistan suffer as a result. Clinton though he could bomb Al Qaeda out of existence and he failed, he had no interest in the Taliban. Bush though he could bomb Al Qaeda out of existence and he failed. Obama continues the same mistake but this time he is dealing with many more people. Afghanistan is just another US foreign policy failure, they just stack up year by year

inthebox

Oct 3, 2009, 07:50 PM

Wondergirl

Oct 3, 2009, 07:59 PM

"Fellow travelers" wow, what an understatement. All these jihadists have the same mindset - anti US, anti - Western civilization. Clinton knew and did nothing of it. Bush knew after 9/11 and did something about it, damaging Al Queda, and no more attacks by them since 9/11 on US soil. Now what is Obama going to do?
It's Bush and his administration's fault we were attacked! And what he did he do after the attack that was so brilliant? Whatever it was, that's not why no more attacks.

tomder55

Oct 4, 2009, 02:29 AM

Not necessarily, The Taliban were fighting a war which may have affected their judgement,

How does being in a war justify the horrible treatment of women by the thugs .I swear the left hates women . How else can you explain them siding with the likes of the Taliban ?

Afghanistan's stable government will be a theocracy.
True democracy is allowing people to determine for themselves the form of government they will have, even if it is theocraticNot necessarily there are other Muslim governments that are clearly not theocracies.Pakistan is democracy ;not a perfect one but it is .Besides I never said they had to be "true democracies" .There are other Central Asian tribal nations bordering Afghanistan that are not theocracies . These nations have Presidential Republics .They are not democracy by choice but they are stable nations not harboring terrorists.

It's Bush and his administration's fault Ah yes the boilerplate argument of last resort which we will hear over and over again the next 3 years for any Obama policy failures.The most recent example of this was it's use by Roland Burris who said that the reason Chicago didn’t win the Olympics is because BO did not have enough time to make up for the hatred caused by GW Bush.:confused:

paraclete

Oct 4, 2009, 12:02 PM

It's Bush and his administration's fault we were attacked! And what he did he do after the attack that was so brilliant? Whatever it was, that's not why no more attacks.

Hardly. The US was attacked because of US foreign policy failures over many years, Bush wasn't in office long enough to have directly provided the excuse for attack, he was asleep at the wheel. Now if you were speaking of the policies of Bush senior and his presence in Saudi Arabia which continued for years after you may have found a reason. Bib Laden gave it as a reason for the attacks. You should think more about Clinton, he had more ability to influence events before 9/11

paraclete

Oct 4, 2009, 12:11 PM

" Bush knew after 9/11 and did something about it, damaging Al Queda, and no more attacks by them since 9/11 on US soil. Now what is Obama going to do?

G&P

Yes Bush succeeded in undermining the Al Qaeda base in Afghanistan but it is only good luck that the US hasn't suffered a direct attack. Bush's war in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda was the right move. Nothing brilliant but the right move, but eight years on it is time for a new strategy.The US became paranoid about security after 9/11 which would have disrupted Al Qaeda plans. Bush's action in Afghanistan didn't prevent attacks in Spain, Britain and Indonesia. It is just that the US doesn't have a base of home grown jihadists

Wondergirl

Oct 4, 2009, 01:29 PM

Hardly. The US was attacked because of US foreign policy failures over many years, Bush wasn't in office long enough to have directly provided the excuse for attack, he was asleep at the wheel. Now if you were speaking of the policies of Bush senior and his presence in Saudi Arabia which continued for years after you may have found a reason. Bib Laden gave it as a reason for the attacks. You should think more about Clinton, he had more ability to influence events before 9/11
During the summer of 2001, there were intel reports that terrorists were planning to use planes to attack the US. Those reports were discounted with the belief that anti-aircraft would take care of them. "In sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. They did not have direction, and did not have a plan to institute.The borders were not hardened. Transportation systems were not fortified. Electronic surveillance was not targeted against a domestic threat. State and local law enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI’s efforts. The public was not warned." ("The System Was Blinking Red," The 9-11 Commission Report)

paraclete

Oct 4, 2009, 02:16 PM

During the summer of 2001, there were intel reports that terrorists were planning to use planes to attack the US. Those reports were discounted with the belief that anti-aircraft would take care of them. "In sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. They did not have direction, and did not have a plan to institute.The borders were not hardened. Transportation systems were not fortified. Electronic surveillance was not targeted against a domestic threat. State and local law enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI’s efforts. The public was not warned." ("The System Was Blinking Red," The 9-11 Commission Report)

And the attackers were already in the US, as I said Bush was asleep at the wheel, but the policies which caused the attack existed before Bush came to office. Warning the public would have done nothing but promote panic and another "reds under the bed" pogrom this time searching for Muslims. I think Americans have an unrealistic view that the attacks could have been prevented when in fact there were only suspicions that an "attack" might take place. It is easy to be an arm chair critic after the event and be able to say that something is obvious. Yes with hindsight it is obvious but don't be a rear gunner

Wondergirl

Oct 4, 2009, 02:21 PM

And the attackers were already in the US, as I said Bush was asleep at the wheel, but the policies which caused the attack existed before Bush came to office. Warning the public would have done nothing but promote panic and another "reds under the bed" pogrom this time searching for Muslims. I think Americans have an unrealistic view that the attacks could have been prevented when in fact there were only suspicions that an "attack" might take place. It is easy to be an arm chair critic after the event and be able to say that something is obvious. yes with hindsight it is obvious but don't be a rear gunner
The Bush administration was thinking the attack would come from a foreign country, and discounted reports about a bunch of Mideastern student pilots at several US flight schools who wanted to know only how to fly a plane, but not to take off or land. No one envisioned an attack using domestic aircraft even though the evidence was there and available and being talked about!

paraclete

Oct 4, 2009, 03:46 PM

The Bush administration was thinking the attack would come from a foreign country, and discounted reports about a bunch of Mideastern student pilots at several US flight schools who wanted to know only how to fly a plane, but not to take off or land. No one envisioned an attack using domestic aircraft even though the evidence was there and available and being talked about!

Yes there was even a game with the scenario which is suspicious in itself. Look their behaviour was suspicious but if those who were instructing them didn't see a need to report or stop training them, then how could it be expected that politicians in such rarefied places as the White House would see a need to be suspicious of everything. Today we talk about reporting suspicious talk and actions but it was beyond comprehension before 9/11, just not part of the ethos. Al Qaeda was some obscure organisation in an even more obscure place. Aircraft hijacking had ceased to be a terrorist operation, they had graduated to hotel and embassy bombings so obviously highjacking was dismissed as a possibility. Using a plane as a bomb just wasn't in the thinking

ETWolverine

Oct 5, 2009, 07:48 AM

I never said to ignore them. How would you separate out the "good" from the "bad"? Ask them?

I already answered that question.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/afghanistan-time-go-398081-9.html#post2009672

tomder55

Oct 5, 2009, 08:10 AM

The Taliban is 100% Pashtun . The Pashtuns are not 100% Taliban. This is similar to Iraq and much less complicated in my view because the factionalism in the country had broken out into open combat .

One of the reasons the surge in Iraq worked so well is because there was a parallel "Sunni Awakening ". They began to trust the Americans more than they trusted to terrorist Sunni's working among them. Not surprising is that when the terrorists controlled territory they implemented a Taliban-like Sharia-law . The Sunnis that were fence sitters did not like that at all. Yet ,they were never going to trust the Americans if they cleared the terrorist out and then moved on to let the terrorists reoccupy the town. The effective doctrine of clear and hold followed by good will convinced them that the Americans were the ones to back .

This is the stategy I'm sure General Petraeus and McCrystal expect to initiate . But what that requires is the temporary increase in troop strength. Once that happens not only will the Pashtun turn on the Taliban... but elements of the Taliban will also flip.

ETWolverine

Oct 5, 2009, 08:14 AM

It is you who needs to get real and realise that their mindset will not change no matter what you do.

Then I fail to see why we should be leaving Afghanistan and feeding in to that mindset that says those perceived as weak are to be attacked.

The Taliban are not the Jihadists who attacked America on 9/11.

Nah... they're just another group of Jihadists who want us dead and who support the ones who DID attack us on 9/11. That's different, right?

I thought that the complaint about Iraq coming from the Left was that Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11, none of the terrorists came from Iraq and Iraq didn't do anything to support the attacks against us.

Well, then, we have Afghanistan, a country in which 17 of the 19 terrorists who attacked us came through before the attack. They were supported by the Afghani government which, at the time, was run by the Taliban. The terrorists received direct monetary and logistical support from Afghanistan's government.

So, the argument that the Taliban wasn't involved doesn't hold water. The argument that Afghanistan wasn't responsible for the attacks doesn't hold water.

but they already see weakness, eight years of weakness, and many years before that.

Not in the past 8 years. You'll note that the Taliban have been unable to excersize any power over Afghanistan's military or political infrastructure for most of those 8 years. That's because in the past 8 years, we have NOT been acting weak... not until recently, anyway.

The US allowed the Taliban to establish themselves in Afghanistan and they could have cared less until Al Qaeda was found sheltering in Afghanistan.

Yep. And if there had never been a 9/11, we still wouldn't care. But there WAS a 9/11, and so we DO care. Are you arguing that we, as a nation, SHOULDN'T care after being attacked?

If the US had any sort of intelligence capability they would have known about Bin Laden and done something about him long before 9/11.

Yep... lay that one at the feet of Clinton who had the intelligence information to take out bin Laden but didn't.

It demonstrates that Clinton and Bush were asleep at the wheel and the people of Afghanistan suffer as a result.

Oh... I get it... The USA suffered an attack of epic proportions on 9/11. It was OUR fault for not only being the evil people who ignored the plight of the poor Arab, but for lacking effective intelligence strategies to deal with terrorism, and for causing the suffering of the poor Afghanis by letting bin Laden (who, BTW, had nothing to do with the Taliban according to your previous argument) continue to live. And we should, therefore, take no action against the Taliban, because WE, not they are to blame.

That seems to be your logic.

Clinton though he could bomb Al Qaeda out of existence and he failed, he had no interest in the Taliban.

Yes he did.

Bush though he could bomb Al Qaeda out of existence and he failed.

How do you figure that? What "bombing" did Bush do? He didn't bomb them... he sent in 68,000 troops to kill them. There's a HUGE difference between the two.

Obama continues the same mistake but this time he is dealing with many more people. Afghanistan is just another US foreign policy failure, they just stack up year by year

Obama's failure is the failure to commit to a specific strategy. His failure is the inability or unwillingness to make a decision one way of the other with regard to Afghanistan.

Elliot

paraclete

Oct 5, 2009, 02:48 PM

Then I fail to see why we should be leaving Afghanistan and feeding in to that mindset that says those perceived as weak are to be attacked.

Nah... they're just another group of Jihadists who want us dead and who support the ones who DID attack us on 9/11. That's different, right?

I thought that the complaint about Iraq coming from the Left was that Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11, none of the terrorists came from Iraq and Iraq didn't do anything to support the attacks against us.

Well, then, we have Afghanistan, a country in which 17 of the 19 terrorists who attacked us came through before the attack. They were supported by the Afghani government which, at the time, was run by the Taliban. The terrorists received direct monetary and logistical support from Afghanistan's government.

So, the argument that the Taliban wasn't involved doesn't hold water. The argument that Afghanistan wasn't responsible for the attacks doesn't hold water.

Not in the past 8 years. You'll note that the Taliban have been unable to excersize any power over Afghanistan's military or political infrastructure for most of those 8 years. That's because in the past 8 years, we have NOT been acting weak.... not until recently, anyway.

Yep. And if there had never been a 9/11, we still wouldn't care. But there WAS a 9/11, and so we DO care. Are you arguing that we, as a nation, SHOULDN'T care after being attacked?

Yep... lay that one at the feet of Clinton who had the intelligence information to take out bin Laden but didn't.

Oh... I get it... The USA suffered an attack of epic proportions on 9/11. It was OUR fault for not only being the evil people who ignored the plight of the poor Arab, but for lacking effective intelligence strategies to deal with terrorism, and for causing the suffering of the poor Afghanis by letting bin Laden (who, BTW, had nothing to do with the Taliban according to your previous argument) continue to live. And we should, therefore, take no action against the Taliban, because WE, not they are to blame.

That seems to be your logic.

Yes he did.

How do you figure that? What "bombing" did Bush do? He didn't bomb them... he sent in 68,000 troops to kill them. There's a HUGE difference between the two.

Obama's failure is the failure to commit to a specific strategy. His failure is the inability or unwillingness to make a decision one way of the other with regard to Afghanistan.

Elliot

Elliot

You have missed my point. The Taliban have no interest in the US other than removing the US troops from their country. It was Al Qaeda that attacked the US not the Taliban. There were no Afghani in the 9/11 squad, they were Eqyptians, etc. Why didn't the US attack Egypt? Because it would have been absurd and your argument is absurd. Bush attacked Afghanistan to remove Al Qaeda and it had the effect of removing the Taliban from power, fair enough. The US created the Taliban by aiding a jihadist group to gain military power because it suited them. Once again the snake has bit the hand that fed it. The Taliban has now been turned into a terrorist group because they have embraced the tactics of the jihadists. The Pustun may not be all Taliban but they have sympathy with the religious views, this is why you will not change their thinking and certainly not by "protecting" them from their own people. You cannot protect a Muslim from Islam, it is an absurd idea but that is in fact what is being tried in Afghanistan.

The US losses nothing but international "prestige" by leaving Afghanistan. The Afghan people will cheer for a day and go back to their sixth rate lives in a tenth rate country. In fifty years they may once again begin to emerge but only if they are left alone to work it out for themselves and not spend another generation fighting.

My logic is that what goes around comes around and the US has reaped what it has sown. Those targeted on 9/11 in the World Trade Centre were not the people responsible for US policy. Collateral damage as they say, but the US foreign policy caused the backlash that was 9/11. Think about the targets of the 9/11 attacks. The US government was being attacked, its financial systems were being attacked, its hold on the world was being attacked, a surgical strike, cut off the head of the snake, that was Bin Laden's strategy

tomder55

Oct 6, 2009, 02:32 AM

The US created the Taliban by aiding a jihadist group to gain military power because it suited them. Once again the snake has bit the hand that fed it.

I have laid this falsehood to rest more than once already on these boards. To refresh your memory (#24 and #26 ) .
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/out-afghanistan-george-will-392462-3.html

tomder55

Oct 6, 2009, 04:48 AM

My logic is that what goes around comes around and the US has reaped what it has sown. Those targeted on 9/11 in the World Trade Centre were not the people responsible for US policy. Collateral damage as they say, but the US foreign policy caused the backlash that was 9/11. Think about the targets of the 9/11 attacks. The US government was being attacked, its financial systems were being attacked, its hold on the world was being attacked, a surgical strike, cut off the head of the snake, that was Bin Laden's strategy

Tomorrow is the 438th anniversary of the naval battle of Lepanto. It was the last major battle between navies using oared vessels. This was an epoch sea change battle won by a European coalition primarily from Spain, Venice, and Genoa under the command of Don Juan of Austria ,against the Ottomans that stemmed the advance of the Ottomans and their goal of subjugating the West into the Ummah. You will note that there was no US policy to use as a casus belli nor was there any Israel. Nor have the jihadists ever needed a pretext beyond the words of the prophet and his succeeding kindred of Cain to attack the infidel.

speechlesstx

Oct 6, 2009, 06:37 AM

Great history lesson and well said, tom.

excon

Oct 6, 2009, 07:32 AM

Great history lesson and well said, tom.Hello again,

It WAS a great history lesson, and we need to pay attention to history... But, here's what you can't do. You can't draw a straight line from the time tom is talking about, directly to today... There's some history in between that you need to pay attention to, too. But, you guys only like the history that you like..

Here's some you don't like...

Assuming what tom says is true, we DIDN'T believe that 9 years ago when we kind of danced into Afghanistan... We didn't believe it when we called a time out, so we could have a war with Iraq... We didn't believe it, when the dufus let Bin Laden get away...

So, in terms of our war strategy TODAY, you cannot forget our RECENT history in that war... IF you do, I remind you that the American public has NOT. That is where we find ourselves today.

So, no matter what we SHOULD have done from the get go, we DIDN'T. I don't know how many chances the public should give the military to get it right. And, I don't know how many chances the military should ask for.

excon

ETWolverine

Oct 6, 2009, 07:38 AM

Elliot

You have missed my point. The Taliban have no interest in the US other than removing the US troops from their country. It was Al Qaeda that attacked the US not the Taliban.

Ummmm... Clete... you are aware that Mullah Omar's daughter is married to bin Laden's son, aren't you? The two groups are, for all intents and purposes, one and the same.

There were no Afghani in the 9/11 squad, they were Eqyptians, etc. Why didn't the US attack Egypt? Because it would have been absurd and your argument is absurd.

Yes... it would have been absurd to attack one of the few governments on Earth that has been aggressively fighting against terrorists and terrorism since Sadat was assassinated.

Actually, only Mohammed Atta was Egyptian. Of the 19 terrorists who hijacked the airplanes that day, 15 were Saudi Arabian, one was Egyptian, one was Lebanese and two were from the UAE. So your statement is FACTUALLY incorrect.

Furthermore, unlike all those other countries, Afghanistan actually FUNDED the attacks and they received their training in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks was bin Laden, who was being hidden by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Mohammed Atef, one of bin Laden's deputies, was the money-man behind the attacks. He too was hidden and protected by the Taliban. KSM, who is acknowledged as the "architect" of 9/11, was in hiding in Afghanistan before and after the attacks, protected by the Taliban. Only after the Taliban were forced out of power did he leave Afghanistan and go to Pakistan where he was captured. Afghanistan was where the attacks were planned, the staging point for the attacks, the money source for the attacks and the place where the attackers trained.

Bush attacked Afghanistan to remove Al Qaeda and it had the effect of removing the Taliban from power, fair enough. The US created the Taliban by aiding a jihadist group to gain military power because it suited them.

So... according to you, if the USA had not helped the Mujahadeen fight the Soviets, there never would have been a Taliban.

Bull.

Fact is that the Taliban actually came into power to fight AGAINST the Mujahadeen warlords (which we supported) that had gone from fighting the Soviets to fighting against each other when the Soviets had pulled out. The warlords had become corrupt, brutal and power hungry and the Taliban, formed by Mullah Omar, was created to fight against the corruption, brutality and power-madness. Unfortunately, they too became corrupt, brutal and power-hungry. But the bottom line is that they weren't a creation of the USA... they were fighting against the warlords that we put into power.

Once again the snake has bit the hand that fed it. The Taliban has now been turned into a terrorist group because they have embraced the tactics of the jihadists. The Pustun may not be all Taliban but they have sympathy with the religious views, this is why you will not change their thinking and certainly not by "protecting" them from their own people. You cannot protect a Muslim from Islam, it is an absurd idea but that is in fact what is being tried in Afghanistan.

You're right. We can't change their minds. We can't win their hearts. We should stop trying to do so, and just kill the SOBs. And with the right number of troops and the right assets, we can.

The US losses nothing but international "prestige" by leaving Afghanistan. The Afghan people will cheer for a day and go back to their sixth rate lives in a tenth rate country. In fifty years they may once again begin to emerge but only if they are left alone to work it out for themselves and not spend another generation fighting.

Unless you suggest that we cut Afghanistan off by putting a fence around the country and not letting anyone in or out, your tactic is doomed to failure. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are one and the same. They BOTH are looking for the destruction of the USA. If even ONE PERSON can leave Afghanistan, then Afghanistan has the potential to send terrorists to the USA to attack us... as they did on 9/11. Which means that the only solution to stop such an attack is to stop it at the SOURCE... IN AFGHANISTAN.

My logic is that what goes around comes around and the US has reaped what it has sown. Those targeted on 9/11 in the World Trade Centre were not the people responsible for US policy. Collateral damage as they say, but the US foreign policy caused the backlash that was 9/11. Think about the targets of the 9/11 attacks. The US government was being attacked, its financial systems were being attacked, its hold on the world was being attacked, a surgical strike, cut off the head of the snake, that was Bin Laden's strategy

THERE it is... I've been waiting for it. The typical liberal call of "blame the victim".

The evil USA, which has spent more money and more resources than any other country to heal people, help people and feed people all over the world at its own expense, is so demonic that it DESERVED to be attacked by a bunch of religious zealots on September 11, 2001.

How dare we act to save Afghanistan from invasion by the Soviet Union in the 1980s. We should be ashamed of ourselves for actually responding to the calls for help from the Afghani people, AND getting out of the area when their war against the Soviets was over. How evil we are. For shame... We DESERVED to be punished for helping Afghanistan retain its independence from the Soviet Union.

And you call that "logic"?

Elliot

speechlesstx

Oct 6, 2009, 08:23 AM

So, no matter what we SHOULD have done from the get go, we DIDN'T. I don't know how many chances the public should give the military to get it right. And, I don't know how many chances the military should ask for.

I don't have any doubts about our military being able to do the job, I don't think most Americans do either. The politics are another story.

tomder55

Oct 6, 2009, 11:20 AM

Of course I use historical reference for illustration and not to create "straight-line comparison. If I was going to talk about the last 8 years in Afghanistan I would have course mention comparisons to other wartime decisions that did not go as planned or was muddled in the fog of war ,or not executed as perfect as intended.
I could talk about the fact that Delta Force gave coordinates to the Air Force to a cave they were sure that OBL had taken refuge in .That they were monitoring radio traffic from OBL and the radio went silent after the assault on the cave by the air force began. That the bombing sealed the entrance to the cave and they were sure that OBL was a casualty . You want to call that a missed opportunity so be it .
Your left field cause for that I would dispute unless you can prove what mighta been. It is an exercise in pointlessness.

What if Gen. Meade had cut off General Lee's line of retreat after Gettysburg ? It most likely would've saved a years worth of fighting in the Civil War and countless lives .It was clearly a blown opportunity .
Despite the fact that there was a pretty robusts anti-war movement in the country ,a decision was not made to abandon the fight because the mop up of the battle did not go as planned.
I can think of many many SNAFUs and setbacks during WWII .As an example ,Roosevelt made a decision to not reinforce Corregidor. This lead to a defeat and the famous Bataan death march. Do I see a parallel between that decision and the new adopted ROEs and the debate to possibly not reinforce the theater ?
'We're pinned down:' 4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush | McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/jonathan_landay/story/75036.html)
Perhaps .

paraclete

Oct 6, 2009, 02:57 PM

Tomorrow is the 438th anniversary of the naval battle of Lepanto. It was the last major battle between navies using oared vessels. This was an epoch sea change battle won by a European coalition primarily from Spain, Venice, and Genoa under the command of Don Juan of Austria ,against the Ottomans that stemmed the advance of the Ottomans and their goal of subjugating the West into the Ummah. You will note that there was no US policy to use as a casus belli nor was there any Israel. Nor have the jihadists ever needed a pretext beyond the words of the prophet and his succeeding kindred of Cain to attack the infidel.

Of greater significance on this day in 1950 US forces invaded North Korea by crossing the 38th parallel who knows what the pretext was for that but we are still reaping the rewards. I'm not arguing that the actions of the jihadists was a valid response, but that the US must come to understand that they created the monster through a foreign policy that sought to interfere in local conflicts and local politics. It's a message that the US doesn't like to hear because they believe their version of democracy perfect.

All you need for a jihadist to attack is to give them an excuse, no doubt about that, but you will never disuade them by giving them more excuses

tomder55

Oct 7, 2009, 02:24 AM

of greater significance on this day in 1950 US forces invaded North Korea by crossing the 38th parallel who knows what the pretext was for that but we are still reaping the rewards.

A clear fractured fairy tale that cleverly leaves out the fact that the US was already defending South Korea against an invasion by the NORKS that began in June of 1950. Further ,it was not the US but a UN force fighting ;and as for your question about pretext ;it was a UN authorized escalation.

paraclete

Oct 7, 2009, 04:19 AM

How dare we act to save Afghanistan from invasion by the Soviet Union in the 1980s. We should be ashamed of ourselves for actually responding to the calls for help from the Afghani people, AND getting out of the area when their war against the Soviets was over. How evil we are. For shame... We DESERVED to be punished for helping Afghanistan retain its independence from the Soviet Union.

And you call that "logic"?

Elliot

What a load of rubbish, you didn't do anything to save the Afghan people from the Soviet Union, stop watching rambo movies. You couldn't care less about Afghan independence, Afghanistan was a soviet client state. You did what you usually do and outsourced your "help" to a few misguided Muslims who had the audacity to get help from their brothers and actually win. There wasn't a US soldier in sight. You want to take credit for the mujahadeen then take credit for giving Muslims a reason for creating the Taliban also

What's the count on corrupt regimes created, aided and abetted by the US now, I've lost count and you want to tell me that there shouldn't be a backlash, afteral you were just helping. Rubbish, you were helping yourselves as usual

excon

Oct 7, 2009, 06:29 AM

Hello again:

WHERE the enemy's of the US CAME from is not as important as where they are COMING from, right NOW - TODAY!!

You righty's argue about the past, as though it's important, all the while ignoring your HUGE NEON BLINKING TERRORIST RECRUITING POSTER hanging up in Gitmo...

And, you look around the world in wonderment, wide eyed, not having a clue why they're pissed off at us..

You righty's are VERY silly.

excon

tomder55

Oct 7, 2009, 06:44 AM

You still don't get it. We could be as pure as snow and they would still attack us .

Gitmo offends you ;not them. The best prison in the ummah,and most in the US are hell holes compared to Gitmo.

excon

Oct 7, 2009, 06:58 AM

you still don't get it. we could be as pure as snow and they would still attack us .

Gitmo offends you ;not them. The best prison in the ummah,and most in the US are hell holes compared to Gitmo.Hello again, tom:

No. YOU don't get it. We could be feeding them pheasant under glass in air conditioned luxury, and it wouldn't make a difference...

Keeping them FOREVER without a trial IS the issue - not their conditions... WHY you don't get that blows me away. Funny - you don't even DENY that we're screwing them over. You just say they'd be pissed at us ANYWAY... Your logic makes no sense... Really - it's totally bonkers.

excon

ETWolverine

Oct 7, 2009, 07:04 AM

Hello again, tom:

No. YOU don't get it. We could be feeding them pheasant under glass in air conditioned luxury, and it wouldn't make a difference....

Keeping them FOREVER without a trial IS the issue - not their conditions... WHY you don't get that blows me away. Funny - you don't even DENY that we're screwing them over. You just say they'd be pissed at us ANYWAY... Your logic makes no sense... Really - it's totally bonkers.

excon

What blows me away is the fact that you STILL think terrorism and acts of war should be treated like crimes, and that people caught on the field of battle should be granted trials. There is no precedent for it anywhere in history or in the rules of war or the Geneva Conventions... but YOU think it's right.

POWs don't get trials. They aren't criminals.

Elliot

excon

Oct 7, 2009, 07:22 AM

What blows me away is the fact that you STILL think terrorism and acts of war should be treated like crimes, and that people caught on the field of battle should be granted trials. There is no precedent for it anywhere in history or in the rules of war or the Geneva Conventions... but YOU think it's right.Hello again, Elliot:

You STILL make your argument while ignoring the FACTS.

What you say WOULD be true, if the war at hand, like ALL previous wars, is going to END. But, the dufus said THIS war ISN'T going to end. THAT is what there's no precedence for in history, as well as your intention to keep the POW'S FOREVER...

The problem you righty's have, is the US Constitution... The dufus set up Gitmo specifically to AVOID US law... But, that sneaky LEFT WING Supreme Court, led by the radical leftist John Roberts, followed by those commie's Alito and Scalia TOLD the dufus that he couldn't DO that...

So, it's not ME who thinks it right... It's those commies on the Supreme Court...

excon

speechlesstx

Oct 8, 2009, 07:06 AM

Here's why Obama is having problems with McChrystal's request... they signed on to his plan without knowing what they were getting into (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/07/AR2009100704088.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009100704286).

"It was easy to say, 'Hey, I support COIN,' because nobody had done the assessment of what it would really take, and nobody had thought through whether we want to do what it takes," said one senior civilian administration official who participated in the review, using the shorthand for counterinsurgency.

The failure to reach a shared understanding of the resources required to execute the strategy has complicated the White House's response to the grim assessment of the war by the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, forcing the president to decide, in effect, what his administration really meant when it endorsed a counterinsurgency plan. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's follow-up request for more forces, which presents a range of options but makes clear that the best chance of achieving the administration's goals requires an additional 40,000 U.S. troops on top of the 68,000 who are already there, has given senior members of Obama's national security team "a case of sticker shock," the administration official said.

And this is why you don't elect an amateur as president. Is there anything he hasn't bungled?

ETWolverine

Oct 8, 2009, 07:18 AM

Hello again, Elliot:

You STILL make your argument while ignoring the FACTS.

What you say WOULD be true, if the war at hand, like ALL previous wars, is going to END. But, the dufus said THIS war ISN'T going to end. THAT is what there's no precedence for in history, as well as your intention to keep the POW'S FOREVER....

The problem you righty's have, is the US Constitution... The dufus set up Gitmo specifically to AVOID US law... But, that sneaky LEFT WING Supreme Court, led by the radical leftist John Roberts, followed by those commie's Alito and Scalia TOLD the dufus that he couldn't DO that...

So, it's not ME who thinks it right.... It's those commies on the Supreme Court...

excon

When WWII started, and the USA started taking POWs, did anyone know when the war was going to end? Or IF it was going to end?

How about in Vietnam? When the USA took VietCong and NVA POWs, did we know when the war was going to end, or even IF it was going to end?

Or Korea... did we know during the war when it would end and that any NK or Chinese POWs we took would eventually be released?

In fact, can you name any war in history where POWs were taken by one side or the other where either side knew that the war was going to end?

When POWs were taken during the 30 Years War or the 100 Years War (and some were), did anyone know when those wars were going to end?

Your argument is complete BS excon, because it assumes that in every war in history EXCEPT THIS ONE we knew that the war was only going to last for a specific amount of time and then all POWs would be released at the end of the war. The fact is that nobody has a crystal ball, nobody knows when a war is going to end, and yet we took POWs anyway and didn't give them trials. It was neither illegal nor immoral to do so. Nor is it illegal or immoral to do so in THIS war.

Elliot

excon

Oct 8, 2009, 07:29 AM

The fact is that nobody has a crystal ball, nobody knows when a war is going to end, and yet we took POWs anyway and didn't give them trials. It was neither illegal nor immoral to do so. Nor is it illegal or immoral to do so in THIS war.Hello again, Elliot:

If what you say is true, WHY has the ULTRA conservative Supreme Court weighed in and STOPPED the dufus at EVERY turn in Gitmo? IF it was as you say, I PROMISE you, Roberts, Scalia and their right wing cronies would be on YOUR side BIGTIME.

They aren't. Something's amiss with your argument BIGTIME. You're leaving out salient facts again, aren't you? I guess you think nobody is paying attention... It's actually kind of insulting, really. I guess you think I'm dumb. Poor Wolverine.

It's awfully hard to argue with you when you keep forgetting stuff.

excon

ETWolverine

Oct 8, 2009, 07:51 AM

Hello again, Elliot:

If what you say is true, WHY has the ULTRA conservative Supreme Court weighed in and STOPPED the dufus at EVERY turn in Gitmo?

Which turns are those. Gitmo is still open for business. Even Obama hasn't been able to shut it down.

IF it was as you say, I PROMISE you, Roberts, Scalia and their right wing cronies would be on YOUR side BIGTIME.

What makes you think they're not?

In Boumedine v. Bush, Roberts, Scalia Thomas and Alito dissented with the majority of the Court's opinion vis-à-vis Habeas Corpus rights for POWs.

In Rasul v Bush, Thomas, Scalia and Renquist dissented with the Majority of the Court's opinion (this pre-dated Alito and Roberts).

In Hamdi V. Rumsfeld, O'Connor, Renquist, Breyer and Kennedy all agreed (Plurality opinion) that Bush had the authority to hold POWs under the powers granted him in the Authorization to Use Military Force. However, they also said that POWs had the right to challenge their detainment. The decision itself wa BAD LAW, but nothing there says that holding POWs indefinitely is illegal, just that there has to be a method for the POWs to challenge their detainment. Once that challenge is reviewed and denied, the POWs stay where they are INDEFINITELY.

At no point has there ever been a suggestion by the court that holding POWs indefinitely is illegal.

Sorry, you're wrong again.

Elliot

tomder55

Oct 8, 2009, 08:28 AM

Here's why Obama is having problems with McChrystal's request... they signed on to his plan without knowing what they were getting into (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/07/AR2009100704088.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009100704286).
Steve ;I never read anything from Rajiv Chandrasekaran before but I have to commend the Washington Post . They have come down from the Obasism and are beginning to show some true investigative reporting on the President .

What I don't understand is that the President with great fanfare made a speech to the CFR in March where he definitively announced an Afghan strategery based on his careful reading of the white paper his civilian advisors had prepared .
Obama's Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, March 2009 - Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/publication/18952/)

He said things like This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review that I ordered as soon as I took office.

In it he outlines many of the civilian initiatives like “opportunity zones”that Chandrasekaran mentions .However ,I have not seen any movement at all in that direction either ;nor is there any indication that that was ever a serious policy option.

Nor does it appear that he is serious about anything he does beyond the continued moving of domestic policy towards a leftist agenda. I cannot put my finger on anything concrete regarding a foreign policy besides delay tough choices and appease everyone. The problem with kicking the can down the road is that eventually the road comes to an end.

speechlesstx

Oct 8, 2009, 09:51 AM

[QUOTE]Steve ;I never read anything from Rajiv Chandrasekaran before but I have to commend the Washington Post . They have come down from the Obasism and are beginning to show some true investigative reporting on the President .

Yes they actually have, waiting for more to follow suit.

Nor does it appear that he is serious about anything he does beyond the continued moving of domestic policy towards a leftist agenda. I cannot put my finger on anything concrete regarding a foreign policy besides delay tough choices and appease everyone. The problem with kicking the can down the road is that eventually the road comes to an end.

It seems to me most of Obama's policy is to reframe the debate. Just as health care reform became health insurance reform, the war in Afghanistan is now a war on Al Qaeda because the Taliban "do not pose a direct threat to the United States (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/world/asia/08prexy.html?hp)."

tomder55

Oct 8, 2009, 10:09 AM

Yeah that figures ;his Generals ;his Sec State ,his Sec Defense all are warning him against a policy his brilliant Vice President supports . So of course he is siding with the lone voice.

Moreover, they suggest that the Taliban have no interest in letting Al Qaeda back into Afghanistan because that was what cost them power when they were toppled by American-backed Afghan rebels in 2001.

Oh yeah we put the dear of God in them!! If they learned that lesson after our reaction to 9-11 what leason have they learned from events of recent weeks ?

I wonder if the President is going to arrange a hudna with the Taliban leaders to personally apologize to them for the misunderstanding ?

Edit : Flopping Aces has compiled some of the President's previous statements about Afghanistan.
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/09/28/a-brief-timeline-of-president-obamas-benchmark-statements-on-the-war-of-necessity/

speechlesstx

Oct 8, 2009, 10:38 AM

I wonder if the President is going to arrange a hudna with the Taliban leaders to personally apologize to them for the misunderstanding ?

He'll have to invite the Mahdi Hatter.

Cooperation Rises between Iran and Taliban (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/07/eveningnews/main5370148.shtml). And naturally, Obama has muzzled the military on this... but remember, the Taliban is no direct threat to the U.S.

The west of Afghanistan, bordering Iran, is fast becoming a graveyard for U.S. forces. U.S. deaths there have spiked from four a year since the war began, to 13 in the last five months alone.

U.S. military officials have told CBS News that Iran is sending money and weapons onto the Afghan battlefield. But U.S. commanders are not allowed to comment publicly and it's unclear to them what the U.S. strategy is for dealing with Iran's increasingly deadly involvement.

How much freakin' cover are we going to give Iran??

tomder55

Oct 8, 2009, 10:47 AM

It's not possible that Iran and the Taliban are cooperating . One is Shia and the other Sunni :rolleyes:

paraclete

Oct 8, 2009, 05:05 PM

it's not possible that Iran and the Taliban are cooperating . One is Shia and the other Sunni :rolleyes:

Then why do you think Ahamadjihad offered to help the negotiations. Was he just whistling in the wind. You are right though there is no love lost between the Taliban and the Iranians. Actually here's a strategy, pull out and let those guys fight it out instead of giving them a common enemy in proximity

tomder55

Oct 9, 2009, 03:54 AM

The Prez just got the Nobel Peace Prize . Maybe that explains why the prick has been delaying a decision on increasing the troop strength!!

I guess it's too late for him to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics??

paraclete

Oct 9, 2009, 04:52 AM

The Prez just got the Nobel Peace Prize . Maybe that explains why the prick has been delaying a decision on increasing the troop strength !!!!!!

I guess it's too late for him to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics ???????????

Yes he got the prize for a load of maybe and shouldbe; $20 million for a crock of... The prize for economics goes to Krudd for the stimulus that worked or did it just delay?

tomder55

Oct 9, 2009, 04:52 AM

The Washington Post continues it's coverage of Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama(mmm mmm mmm... he was in office a total of 2 weeks before his nomination... Obamamessiah has now been crowned the prince of peace) and his deliberations on the best way to cut and run while at the same time not losing face. Scott Wilson reports today that the President sees Lebanon as a possible model .

Some inside the White House have cited Hezbollah, the armed Lebanese political movement, as an example of what the Taliban could become. Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, but the group has political support within Lebanon and participates, sometimes through intimidation, in the political process
washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/08/AR2009100804329.html)

This of course is a completely flawed analogy that has crossed the border to the absurd. Although it is true that Hezbollah has infiltrated Lebanese society enough to become a political entity as well as a terrorist organization ;it is hardly a national movement confined within the borders of Lebanon. Further it is a proxy of both Syria and Iran and acts according to their direction. Hezbollah also has expanded to a point where it has an active presence beyond the ME ;most notably it's expansion into Central America.
Hezbollah builds a Western base - Americas- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17874369/)

Counterterrorism Blog: The Hezbollah-Latin America Ties Become More Clear (http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/10/the_hezbollahlatin_america_tie.php)

Mary Anastasia O'Grady: Revolutionary Anti-Semitism - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574451341698592458.html?m od=googlenews_wsj)

But the President thinks if he opens the door for a return of the Taliban they will cease attacking us ;and will be content with sharing power in the country . Also I guess he thinks that they will cease undermining Pakistan. (mmm mmm mmm)

speechlesstx

Oct 9, 2009, 05:12 AM

The Prez just got the Nobel Peace Prize . Maybe that explains why the prick has been delaying a decision on increasing the troop strength !!!!!!

I guess it's too late for him to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics ???????????

The first Nobel Peace Prize awarded for campaigning.

excon

Oct 13, 2009, 06:56 AM

Hello again:

Beyond whether the Taliban or Al Quaida or an insurgency is the enemy, there are BIGGER considerations. I mean WAY big...

Even though he promised "change", so far Obama has embraced the Bush Doctrine. His upcoming decision on troop strength in Afghanistan is the REAL test, though. It's because THAT decision will signify if REAL change is upon us..

Implementing the McCrystal plan will perpetuate the longstanding policy of maintaining a GLOBAL military presence. At its core, the McChrystal plan aims to AVERT CHANGE. Its purpose - despite 9/11 and despite the failures of Iraq - is to preserve the status quo.. .

If Obama assents to McChrystal's request, he will void his promise of change. The Afghanistan war will continue until the end of his first term and probably beyond. It will consume hundreds of billions of dollars. It will result in thousands more American combat deaths.

And, we still won't win. Like there's no crying in baseball, there's no winning in Afghanistan. THAT is what's at stake in his decision.

excon

PS> There's a Frontline special on Afghanistan this Friday. Watch it, and report back.

speechlesstx

Oct 13, 2009, 07:13 AM

The problem you have here ex is if Obama opts not to take the McChrystal route it will reveal the "contrived and disingenuous (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/08/AR2009100803132.html)" Afghan policy that he and the Democrats have championed since the 2004 Kerry campaign. And as tom and Krauthammer noted, he'll have to backtrack on the strategy he announced and endorsed on March 27th.

Your guy has dug himself a nice hole here.

excon

Oct 13, 2009, 07:25 AM

The problem you have here ex is if Obama opts not to take the McChrystal route it will reveal the contrived and disingenuous Afghan policy that he and the Democrats have championed.

Your guy has dug himself a nice hole here.Hello again, Steve:

He did, but things change. This is something you guys NEVER consider. If we start a war, even if it was the WRONG war, you still think we have to WIN it...

You even cite the last dead soldier as the reasons we need to risk more dead soldiers. Frankly, that makes NO sense. You put your soldiers at risk to achieve the objective.. If, however, you HAVE NO objective, you cite the last dead soldier as the reason we need to keep fighting. Somehow you think we have to honor him by risking more DEAD soldiers... Nope. It don't make ANY sense to me.

But, if Obama is the leader I HOPE he is, he will LEAD instead of following.. We'll see what he's going to do. I'm not confident in a positive outcome. Changing the course of the ship of state ain't an easy thing to do.

excon

tomder55

Oct 13, 2009, 07:34 AM

No change in lying is there ? He campaigned emphatically calling Afghanistan a necessary war. What changed ? He won ? Or was it a throw away one-liner calling it a necessary war with a wink and a nod to the left base with an understanding that he was lying . But then he added that Afghanistan was the central front on the war on terror . Was he lying then also ? Was his selection of hardliner Evita also subterfuge ? How about Richard Holbrook? Was personally appointing General McChrystal ? Knowing full well how they would advise him ;why did he select them ? For some kind of shallow political cover ?

When General Paetraus proposed the surge in Iraq . The Congressional Democrats could not wait to haul him up to Capitol Hill for him to lay out the justification for his plan. But now ;when a similar plan is proposed by the theater commander the Dems. Won't give him the time of day. He was all but forced to go public with his plan to get any hearing on it at all.
This tells me the President isn't and never was serious about Afghanistan . It was all merely a campaign talking point.

excon

Oct 13, 2009, 07:43 AM

No change in lying is there ? He campaigned emphatically calling Afghanistan a necessary war. What changed ? Hello again, tom:

Again, you seem to think that once a decision is made, even if it's the WRONG decision, we need to stick with it... You call LEADING, lying. I don't.

What changed?? I don't know what changed for HIM, if ANYTHING. But, I told you what changed for ME. It was the same AHAAA kind of moment I had when I turned against the war in Vietnam. I don't recall what it was right now, but I'm sure it had to do with dead soldiers and leaders not quite knowing WHY they're dead.

I hope you're right about him.. But, I fear he's really a dufus just like the original... He hasn't YET shown me he has the chops for the job.

excon

tomder55

Oct 13, 2009, 07:47 AM

speechlesstx

Oct 13, 2009, 08:00 AM

Let's be clear about this (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/us/politics/27obama-text.html)...

March 27, 2009

Good morning. Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review that I ordered as soon as I took office. My Administration has heard from our military commanders and diplomats. We have consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments; with our partners and NATO allies; and with other donors and international organizations. And we have also worked closely with members of Congress here at home. Now, I'd like to speak clearly and candidly to the American people.

The situation is increasingly perilous. It has been more than seven years since the Taliban was removed from power, yet war rages on, and insurgents control parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Attacks against our troops, our NATO allies, and the Afghan government have risen steadily. Most painfully, 2008 was the deadliest year of the war for American forces.

Many people in the United States – and many in partner countries that have sacrificed so much – have a simple question: What is our purpose in Afghanistan? After so many years, they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there? They deserve a straightforward answer.

So let me be clear: al Qaeda and its allies – the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks – are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.

The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan. In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al Qaeda and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes al Qaeda's leadership: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe-haven to hide, train terrorists, communicate with followers, plot attacks, and send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan. For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world.

But this is not simply an American problem – far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it – too – is likely to have ties to al Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake.

For the Afghan people, a return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people – especially women and girls. The return in force of al Qaeda terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence.

As President, my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people. We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future. We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists.

So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you.

Again, just to be clear...

excon

Oct 13, 2009, 08:09 AM

I certainly did not call what he has done leadership. But I'm glad you recognize that when the policy in Iraq was a struggle ;that President Bush showed leadership by changing course and supporting the surge . Yes sir ;real leadership .Hello again, tom:

Even though I opposed it, I agree. He DID show leadership. It may have been the ONLY time he did. I, however, still am loathe to call it a success... We have a LOT of troops keeping the lid on an insurgency that is just waiting to get underway. Or, if you look carefully, they're really not waiting at all...

I hope I'm wrong. Maybe Iraq is fixed. I don't think so. We'll see. So, the dufus lead. The question that remains for me, is did he lead good.

The Wolverine thinks the additional 40,000 troops plus the 60,000 there will be enough to win. He's NUTS. There's NO winning in Afghanistan. It's not really a country. You can't defeat not a country. If we had a half a million troops there, we wouldn't win.

excon

ETWolverine

Oct 13, 2009, 11:36 AM

Hello again, tom:

Even though I opposed it, I agree. He DID show leadership. It may have been the ONLY time he did. I, however, still am loathe to call it a success... We have a LOT of troops keeping the lid on an insurgency that is just waiting to get underway. Or, if you look carefully, they're really not waiting at all...

I hope I'm wrong. Maybe Iraq is fixed. I don't think so. We'll see. So, the dufus lead. The question that remains for me, is did he lead good.

The Wolverine thinks the additional 40,000 troops plus the 60,000 there will be enough to win. He's NUTS. There's NO winning in Afghanistan. It's not really a country. You can't defeat not a country. If we had a half a million troops there, we wouldn't win.

excon

Oh... I get it.

A war on terror is a bad thing because you can't beat terrorists because they don't have a country.

When you instead fight against the countries that support terrorism and in which terrorists are currently hiding, they aren't really countries either. :rolleyes:

Convenient how that works. :D

Elliot

paraclete

Oct 13, 2009, 02:23 PM

Hello again, Steve:

He did, but things change. This is something you guys NEVER consider. If we start a war, even if it was the WRONG war, you still think we have to WIN it...

You even cite the last dead soldier as the reasons why we need to risk more dead soldiers. Frankly, that makes NO sense. You put your soldiers at risk to achieve the objective.. If, however, you HAVE NO objective, you cite the last dead soldier as the reason we need to keep fighting. Somehow you think we have to honor him by risking more DEAD soldiers... Nope. It don't make ANY sense to me.

But, if Obama is the leader I HOPE he is, he will LEAD instead of following.. We'll see what he's gonna do. I'm not confident in a positive outcome. Changing the course of the ship of state ain't an easy thing to do.

excon

You don't start a war you don't think you can win, but this is one the US would never win. The more troops are sent the more likely the Taliban will fade away to return later, this is a war of ideology not territory

paraclete

Oct 13, 2009, 02:29 PM

Oh... I get it.

A war on terror is a bad thing because you can't beat terrorists because they don't have a country.

When you instead fight against the countries that support terrorism and in which terrorists are currently hiding, they aren't really countries either. :rolleyes:

Convenient how that works. :D

Elliot

Yes it is, do you think Bin Laden might have realised this? Perhaps he did it to draw the US into an unwinnable war, to drain their resources at the same time hoping to cripple them economically, knowing that US pride would prevent them from taking a longer view and not committing large numbers of troops. Quite a grand strategy after all?

ETWolverine

Oct 13, 2009, 02:40 PM

Yes it is, do you think Bin Laden might have realised this? Perhaps he did it to draw the US into an unwinnable war, to drain their resources at the same time hoping to cripple them economically, knowing that US pride would prevent them from taking a longer view and not committing large numbers of troops. Quite a grand strategy afterall?

Uh huh...

To paraphrase General Norman Schwartzkopf, except for the fact that he has no strategic experience, no tactical skill and doesn't know which end of a rifle to hold forward, OBL is a BRILLIANT military leader.

Yep. What a strategy.

>snicker<

Elliot

phlanx

Oct 13, 2009, 02:51 PM

Evening All,

It is good to see that support for the armed forces of any nation is being given to people

At present there has been a lot said in England about the way our soldiers are being treated upon return here

In the last 12 months there has been upsurge of pride and admiration for those fallen and those who have come back

If we are ever going to achieve peace and stability throughout the world then these wars must be unfortunately fought.

Not to mention that the whole situation from 911 highlights what happens when regimes are left in the mess they were left by other countries, particularly American And the UK in past generations

We campaign for safer streets from our neighbours who might do us harm, and yet people protest over a war that was inevitable

As regards the comments above, NATO is sadly out of touch, with ideals that were created after WWII now a distant memory

France and Germany objected to Iraq for one main reason, MONEY

Both countries had a lot of vested interest in these parts of the world, for nothing more than this part of the world finds it hard to deal with American Companies and Commonwealth states, no surprise there

In addition, Germany does not have an army to speak off - WWII fall out still on that issue

France and The UK have rarely seen eye to eye on any issue for just over a thousand years, can't see it changing soon

The point here, is there is an enormous amount of history driving today's events, all of which need to be sorted out if we are too move forward

And to the Men and Women who place themselves in the firing line to achieve something good and right - you all should be applauded as heroes

paraclete

Oct 13, 2009, 03:13 PM

Uh huh...

To paraphrase General Norman Schwartzkopf, except for the fact that he has no strategic experience, no tactical skill and doesn't know which end of a rifle to hold forward, OBL is a BRILLIANT millitary leader.

Yep. What a strategy.

>snicker<

Elliot

Some of the more brilliant military commanders have been home grown, not fettered by their training and someone else's world view and stormin Norman is thought brilliant because he beat a group of no hopers by leading a charge

phlanx

Oct 13, 2009, 03:22 PM

Wolverine, that's too easy!

You state, What make you so sure we are not unbeatable?

Simple, The brits are their, and we don't loose! :)

excon

Oct 16, 2009, 07:37 AM

phlanx

Oct 16, 2009, 07:58 AM

Salvo Excon,

Hope all is well?

There is one sure thing that nobody wants, a war in Pakistan!

This would then force the conflict between India and Pakistan to go to a full blown war

This in turn would then bring Iran into play as they would side with Pakistan against India and particular the US and UK

Which in turn would then bring the rest of the middle east into the playing field and then yes our worst nightmares would be closer to reality than Regan in the 80s every came to it

There is one thing that pakistan needs and wants though - recognition at the table

Their people are spread far and wide across the world and as such can influence domestic policy in their new countries as much as they can in the old and as such, Pakistan has to and is trying to stop their own country being ripped apart

I just hope they haven't left it too late for it to happen, because if they don't then yes we will have to, and who knows what the outcome of that one will be

paraclete

Oct 16, 2009, 01:08 PM

Hello:

Has anybody noticed that the terrorists don't seem to BE in Afghanistan any more? I think they're hiding in their safe haven, Pakistan. They've got friends there - just like the Taliban was their friend in Afghanistan.

Isn't that where the fight is? Isn't that the place that we MUST defend because of the nukes?

We're in really deep trouble, aren't we? The dufus broke it soooooo badly, that we might not be able to fix it..

excon
I commented the other day that there were only 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the current effort is overkill for eliminating Al Qaeda.

Ex It is highly likely that Pakistan has been the base all along, at least for most of the past eight years. Pakistan has a long history of fostering the groups we now call terrorist and the Taliban grew out of Pakistan and was supported by Pakistan. The present President of Pakistan is a supporter of the Taliban. Attempts to reign them in is being met with stiff opposition and remember you have both an ethnic and a religious component here. These guys have tasted the power of having their own country and it looks attractive to them, not only that but their country is now overrun by infidels in their eyes. They take a very narrow view of who is a Muslim so they won't get support from Iran. The way this should be played is for foreign troops to get out of Afghanistan and the government of Pakistan and Afghanistan be supported by military aid. Surely there are enough mercenaries in the world if they are needed (Blackwater and others).

Yes Bush broke it because he took his eye off the ball and played pattie cake with Saddam to avenge his daddy